RE: Subject
It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
reactor shut downs.
In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the
tsunamis.
So much for that back up.
Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right
on the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.
This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate
less than 2 miles away.
It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power
during emergency reactor shut down.
Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
stations.
Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in
recent years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and
underground diesel storage tanks.
A couple of thoughts:
1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning
flywheel approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are
they depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?
Cranking motor and battery is less costly.
2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.
3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
earthquake country?
As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
territory out there.
Lew
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:13:00 -0700, Larry Jaques
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I've measured a 10% mileage reduction for 10% ethanol on my Ranger. Makes
> it
> rather useless, eh?
And that E85 fuel is worse than filling up with water... er almost.
On Mar 18, 12:56=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/18/2011 9:45 AM, dpb wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/18/2011 2:58 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> > ...
>
> >> Other countries recycle their spent nuclear rods, resulting in far les=
s
> >> radioactive waste. Why doesn't the USA?
>
> > Primarily we never got started because Mista' Ca-ahter (peanut farmer,
> > nuclear Navy, fairly decent woodworker to keep us on topic :) ) couldn'=
t
> > distinguish (didn't understand) the difference between reprocessing for
> > weapons (nuclear proliferation) and commercial nuclear power and made
> > two sweeping edicts part of his policy platform --
>
> > 1) Canceled the Breeder Demonstration project at Oak Ridge, and
>
> > 2) Executive order that NRC would not consider the application of GE fo=
r
> > licensing a facility at Barnwell for reprocessing commercial nuclear fu=
el.
>
> > We're still paying the consequences for both... :(
>
> As in it accomplished nothing regarding nuclear proliferation (N Korea,
> Iran as prime examples) and we still have no coherent spent nuclear fuel
> policy (other than continue to let it accumulate up at the reactors in
> the spent fuel pools).
>
>
>
> > (BS NucE/MS NucSci, retired, w/ 30+ years w/ reactor vendor and
> > consultant to utilities, various US national laboratories, DOE and
> > commercial clients...)
>
> > --
We don't really know about Iran's capabilities. BUT... if you lived
next door to Israel, who does have nuclear capability without ever
having signed on to any non proliferation treaties, wouldn't you want
to be able to deter an aggressor with weapons of similar ilk? Only
countries with nuclear capability don't get bullied, so who can blame
any nation for wanting those weapons? Aimadinnerjacket might be a
nutbar, but he knows what he needs.
North Korea? They haven't proven conclusively to possess The Bomb....
sure a big bang in a mine and a little radiation 'seed'... a whole ot
of smoke and mirrors...but HEY, we got to keep the little people in
the Homeland scared of the boogie man, and Iran and NKorea sure come
in handy for that....
>So much for that back up.
At Chernobyl, the nuke reacto'rs controls ran on electricity FROM THE
GRID. That boggles my mind, that a nuke plant used to generate huge
amounts of electricity ran on electricity off the grid. The backup
generators took over 1 minute after grid failure to generate power,
which was too long. So they were doing an experiment to see if the
turbines had enough angular momentum after shutdown to produce enough
power to run the controls to bridge the one-minute gap. They botched
the experiment, the rest is history.
Hurricane Katrina caused a a surge of water in Lake Pontchetrain that
pushed the retaining walls some 30 ft backwards, like pushing a throw
rug on a slick floor. Of course they failed.
Mother Nature bats last, every game.
Here's a few good reads:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_involvement_in_the_Chernobyl_disaster
(Brutal descriptions of the effects of radiation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_K._Daghlian,_Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin (They did experiments on
"critical mass" using a lump of plutonium, a hand-held lid and a
screwdriver)
On Mar 21, 12:59=A0pm, Markem <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 22:23:57 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:13:00 -0700, Larry Jaques
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> I've measured a 10% mileage reduction for 10% ethanol on my Ranger. =
=A0Makes
> >> it
> >> rather useless, eh?
>
> >And that E85 fuel is worse than filling up with water... er almost.
>
> If you could just fill up with water....
>
> Mark
I tried water. Doesn't work here in the winter.
On Mar 17, 2:19=A0pm, Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> =A0 =A0Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning
> > flywheel approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are
> > they depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?
>
> Big standby diesels often use compressed air start.
>
> --
> Stuart Winsor
>
> Midland RISC OS show - Sat July 9th 2011
The really big ones cannot be started any other way.
In article <[email protected]>, Lew
Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
> "dpb" wrote:
>
> > And, BTW, perhaps Japan's current situation will be the impetus
> > required to consider that leaving spent fuel just sitting in the
> > (intended only for short-term storage) spent fuel pools at the
> > various reactors isn't really ideal.
> ----------------------------------------
> I suspect that developing and implementing a safe disposal plan for
> spent fuel rods may not be very high on the priority list compared to
> all the other problems this disaster has uncovered that need major
> attention.
This is an interesting idea, if it can be made to work.
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/24/bill_gates_and_terrapower/>
<http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2010/02/bill_gates_g
oes_nuclear.html>
<http://intellectualventureslab.com/?page_id=532>
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>A little follow up on San Onofre.
>
> A "whistle blowers" law suit has been filed against Southern California
> Edison, operators of San Onofre, by some retired safety managers.
>
> Seems these managers were told to down play safety violations reported by
> operating personel by upper management.
>
> These safety managers, some with 30 years service at San Onofre, were
> forced to retire when they would not comply.
>
> Should be interesting.
>
> Lew
Interesting and not at all suprising. What would be suprising is if you
cannot predict the outcome, lots more money spent by the government to
verify but with no real change with repsect to that facility.
On Mar 18, 5:34=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Leon wrote:
> > "k-nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On 3/18/2011 4:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> >>> On 3/17/2011 11:54 AM, Tim W wrote:
> >>>> "Just Wondering"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email protected]...
>
> >> By presenting facts on radiation you are confusing the issue.
>
> >> It is like the double flush toilet, they feel good when they install
> >> a low volume toilet, even though the lack of flow requires =A0you to
> >> flush it twice using more water than the old ones.
>
> > Just what are you trying to flush down your toilet that it takes two
> > flushes? =A0;~) =A0I was skeptical about the double flush from what I h=
ad
> > heard about until we moved into our new home in December. =A0So far 1
> > flush is all that has been necessary althought I was on edge for no
> > reason a time or two.
>
> You shouldn't have been worried. With a low-flow toilet, there is no chan=
ce
> of overflow during a blockage.
>
> Unless you flush twice...
...and don't use MIL's cheese-cake recipe....
On Mar 20, 11:38=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "k-nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/20/2011 8:46 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby<[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>>> New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. =A03"
> >>>>> waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. =A0OTOH,
> >>>>> retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
> >>>>> We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
> >>>>> either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.
>
> >>>>> [*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.
>
> >>>> My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
> >>>> with low flow toilets. =A0The new ones work better than the old high
> >>>> flow toilet.
>
> >>> Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.
>
> >> Not sure why you say what you do above. =A0I've been looking into low =
flows
> >> in
> >> anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the n=
ear
> >> future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
> >> plumbing will not work with the new toilets. =A0Rat's nest plumbing - =
well,
> >> that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
> >> anything.
>
> >> Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. =A0If you're =
going
> >> to
> >> make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a couple/f=
ew
> >> ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. =
=A0If
> >> there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or conside=
red
> >> yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
> >> p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.
>
> > Go to google and type "california problems with low flow toilets" into =
the
> > search window you will see hundreds of articles on the problems caused =
by
> > low flow toilets
>
> > This is a specific article that appeared on CNN recently
>
> >http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/01/low-flow-toilets-cause-stink-in-...
>
> Why am I not suprised that it is once again a California problem. =A0And =
in
> the last 20+ years there are hundreds of articles on problems with toilet=
s.
> There are millions of these toilets in use, not having problems.- Hide qu=
oted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
California vegetarian diet, higher in fiber.
On 03/17/2011 08:01 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:06:23 -0500, "Leon"<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lew Hodgett"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> RE: Subject
>>>
>>> It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
>>> diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
>>> reactor shut downs.
>>>
>>> In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the tsunamis.
>>>
>>> So much for that back up.
>>>
>>> Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right on
>>> the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.
>>>
>>> This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate less
>>> than 2 miles away.
>>>
>>> It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during
>>> emergency reactor shut down.
>>>
>>> Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
>>> stations.
>>>
>>> Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in recent
>>> years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
>>> diesel storage tanks.
>>>
>>> A couple of thoughts:
>>>
>>> 1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning flywheel
>>> approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
>>> depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?
>>>
>>> Cranking motor and battery is less costly.
>>>
>>> 2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
>>> probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.
>>>
>>> 3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
>>> earthquake country?
>>>
>>> As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
>>> territory out there.
>>
>> I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
>> conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a matter
>> of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of the
>> others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
>> environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
>> engeneer methods support those wishes.
>
> Yeah, let's see how those idiot greenies like living with coalfired
> plants spewing godawful amounts of heat and pollution all over them
> while mile-long trains of coal run hourly to the plants to keep them
> operating.
>
> Let's see how long Arizona and Nevada put up with the acid rain from
> them.
Rain? Arizona?
>
> Boy, howdy! This oughta be _good_!
>
> --
> A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
> -- William S. Burroughs
On 3/17/2011 8:01 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:06:23 -0500, "Leon"<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lew Hodgett"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> RE: Subject
>>>
>>> It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
>>> diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
>>> reactor shut downs.
>>>
>>> In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the tsunamis.
>>>
>>> So much for that back up.
>>>
>>> Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right on
>>> the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.
>>>
>>> This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate less
>>> than 2 miles away.
>>>
>>> It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during
>>> emergency reactor shut down.
>>>
>>> Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
>>> stations.
>>>
>>> Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in recent
>>> years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
>>> diesel storage tanks.
>>>
>>> A couple of thoughts:
>>>
>>> 1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning flywheel
>>> approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
>>> depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?
>>>
>>> Cranking motor and battery is less costly.
>>>
>>> 2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
>>> probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.
>>>
>>> 3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
>>> earthquake country?
>>>
>>> As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
>>> territory out there.
>>
>> I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
>> conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a matter
>> of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of the
>> others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
>> environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
>> engeneer methods support those wishes.
>
> Yeah, let's see how those idiot greenies like living with coalfired
> plants spewing godawful amounts of heat and pollution all over them
> while mile-long trains of coal run hourly to the plants to keep them
> operating.
Coal-fired power plants already produce half of USA's electricity.
EPA-mandated scrubbers make the plants low polluters. They are already
running near capacity. They, and all other sources for generating
electricity combined, don't have enough reserve capacity to pick up the
slack if the nuclear power plants were all taken off line. And it takes
years not months to build new plants.
One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.
>
> Let's see how long Arizona and Nevada put up with the acid rain from
> them.
>
> Boy, howdy! This oughta be _good_!
>
> --
> A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
> -- William S. Burroughs
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:17:26 -0700, Dan Coby <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 3/20/2011 5:46 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby<[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
>>>>> waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
>>>>> retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
>>>>> We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
>>>>> either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.
>>>>>
>>>>> [*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.
>>>>
>>>> My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
>>>> with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
>>>> flow toilet.
>>>
>>> Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.
>>>
>>
>> Not sure why you say what you do above. I've been looking into low flows in
>> anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the near
>> future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
>> plumbing will not work with the new toilets. Rat's nest plumbing - well,
>> that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
>> anything.
>>
>> Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. If you're going to
>> make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a couple/few
>> ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. If
>> there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or considered
>> yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
>> p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.
>
>I agree. I also noted that krw completely ignored my statement that my
>new low flow toilets actually work better then my old high flow toilet.
You were simply reporting *YOUR* experience. So what? Your anecdote is not
data. IME, they don't work as well. Others, with older homes, have even
worse experiences.
"Leon" wrote:
> I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go
> back to conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is
> only a matter of time before this polution cutter will bite you in
> the ass like all of the others have. California seems to believe it
> can live in a cleaner environment than the rest of the country but
> obviousely cannot afford or engeneer methods support those wishes.
---------------------------
Poor baby, miss taking your analitis meds today?
Lew
On 3/17/2011 11:54 AM, Tim W wrote:
> "Just Wondering"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>
>> One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
>> present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
>> radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.
>>>
>
> What? That's pretty misleading. A bit like saying a smoky old diesel is
> environmentally sound because it doesn't give you any problem with
> radioactive waste that has to be stored securely for several hundred years
> because it is so dangerous for the environment.
>
You're being misleading yourself by selectively clipping the prior
posts. I was responding to "Leon"'s comment where he said, "I think
California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
conventional ways of generating elecricity." I don't see how it's
misleading to point out a couple of fallacies in that statement.
Other countries recycle their spent nuclear rods, resulting in far less
radioactive waste. Why doesn't the USA?
On 3/17/2011 11:54 AM, Tim W wrote:
> "Just Wondering"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>
>> One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
>> present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
>> radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.
>>>
>
> What? That's pretty misleading. A bit like saying a smoky old diesel is
> environmentally sound because it doesn't give you any problem with
> radioactive waste that has to be stored securely for several hundred years
> because it is so dangerous for the environment.
>
From December 13, 2007 Scientific American article, "Coal Ash Is More
Radioactive than Nuclear Waste",
... the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than
that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash
emitted by a power planta by-product from burning coal for
electricitycarries into the surrounding environment 100 times more
radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
...
The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are
slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plantsthey're just somewhat
higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion
for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million
to one in a hundred million for coal plants."
...
As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a
power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via
water or dry cask storage.
The whole article can be read at
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
On 3/17/2011 1:02 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Leon<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
>> conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a matter
>> of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of the
>> others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
>> environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
>> engeneer methods support those wishes.
>
> We're working on it. Wind, solar, geothermal. All under development.
> All clean. All using free fuel.
>
The "fuel" may be free, but the technology to harness and distribute the
energy is still very expensive. Moreover:
1. Wind power is dependent on the wind. There are very few locations
with a dependable wind source. And there's not enough wind power
available, even if used 100%, to make much of a dent in a nation's
energy needs.
2. Solar power works only when the sun is shining. It would be
possible to build huge solar power farms, and use excess daytime
capacity to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, then burn the
hydrogen when the sun isn't available. Until solar can be made more
efficient, that solution is cost prohibitive. The inventor who makes it
cost-effective may become the richest man on the planet.
3. As with wind power, there are few geothermal heat sources available.
As with solar power, the technology to use geothermal for wholesale
electricity generation, as opposed to heating a building, is inefficient
and cost prohibitive.
One could even harness the tides and ocean currents. There are any
number of other means of obtaining energy from the environment. All are
inefficient and expensive, and will remain so for the near future.
There is no cost-effective alternative to current technologies on the
near horizon. While development of those alternative technologies
should certainly be encouraged, the fact remains that for the reasonable
foreseeable future we are going to have to meet our energy needs
primarily through nuclear power and fossil fuels.
On 2011-03-17 11:01:13 -0400, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> said:
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs
More than a little truth there!
"Just Wondering" wrote:
> Other countries recycle their spent nuclear rods, resulting in far
> less radioactive waste. Why doesn't the USA?
-----------------------------------
An interesting stat has come to light.
Over $13 Billion with a "B" and several years have been spent trying
to answer that question.
A workable solution is still waiting to be found.
Lew
"Larry Jaques" wrote:
> Cites? The only reason I've ever seen is cost. It appears that
> it's
> cheaper to mine and enrich fresh uranium than it is to reprocess it.
-----------------------------
I am reminded of the old story about what part of the body was the
most important.
If the ass hole quit working, the whole body had a real problem.
Right now when it comes to spent fuel rods, the ass hole isn't
working.
Lew
"dpb" wrote:
> Removing Harry Reid some years ago would have done for the interim
> solution.
--------------------------
Ancient history.
--------------------------
> The problem as outlined earlier is political, not technical, going
> back in the US to the Carter edict and then the political football
> that became Yucca Mountain.
------------------------------
More ancient history.
Even if Yucca had been allowed, it isn't big enough to handle all of
today's spent fuel rods.
-------------------------------------
> There's no overriding technical issue
> in that fiasco at all; it was and is entirely populist politics of
> NIMB and personal advantage of the situation by Harry to retain his
> seat.
--------------------------
Until the basic safety issues can be answered, NIMBY seems pretty
reasonable.
Look at the poor bastards who have the fly ash pits in their back
yards in TN and OK for starters.
Lew
.
"dpb" wrote:
> And, BTW, perhaps Japan's current situation will be the impetus
> required to consider that leaving spent fuel just sitting in the
> (intended only for short-term storage) spent fuel pools at the
> various reactors isn't really ideal.
----------------------------------------
I suspect that developing and implementing a safe disposal plan for
spent fuel rods may not be very high on the priority list compared to
all the other problems this disaster has uncovered that need major
attention.
Lew
"dpb" wrote:
> Which basic safety issue is that, precisely?
-------------------------
With what is going on right now in Japan, you have to ask?
>> Look at the poor bastards who have the fly ash pits in their back
>> yards in TN and OK for starters.
>
> Which has what, precisely, to do w/ spent nuclear fuel????
------------------------
It is simply indicative of the total arrogance of the utility
industry.
"Daddy knows what's best" seems to permeate the industry, even the one
with this mess on their hands in Japan.
IMHO, based on 50+ years of on and off dealings with the utility
industry, their approach seems to be the bottom line at any price.
At this point in my life, I take most statements made by the utility
industry with a grain of salt.
Lew
Lew
"dpb" wrote:
>
> But you flip the light switch and expect nearly 100%-reliable power
> at rock-bottom rates, ...
----------------------------
I also expect them to clean up their own mess in the process and not
pass off their garbage for others to do the job.
After all, utilities are unique, they are guaranteed to make a profit
as a part of their rate structure, it's not like they have to compete
in the market place to make a profit.
Lew
"dpb" wrote:
> One of the key problem areas the Japanese are having is the spent
> fuel pools--I have no data on how much spent fuel is onsite there
> but presume there isn't 40-yrs of operation worth given that Japan
> does recycle/reprocess at least some.
>
> Certainly if they were operating under US constraints every bit of
> spent fuel from the first reload would still be there and the
> problems would be even greater.
>
> One would hope that realization of that would break the current
> political stalemate here and get us moving away from that (altho I
> hold little optimism, one can always hope for _some_ enlightenment
> out of DC eventually).
-----------------------------------
Let's face reality.
The nuclear process allows absolutely ZERO tolerance for error.
Ever since the first reactor was commissioned, 40+ years ago, the
industry has been kicking the "spent fuel disposal" can down the road.
There may be no solution to the problem.
Putting spent fuel rods in a welded cask, or burying them certainly
are not long term solutions.
Lew
"dpb" wrote:
> License extensions are only granted after a thorough review.
>
> It is simply not practical to re-engineer/rebuild an existing
> facility entirely so your apparent request is to shut all operating
> plants.
------------------------------
If it is not possible to repair and upgrade a facility to make it
safe, then it needs to be shut down.
As stated elsewhere, the nuclear process allows absolutely ZERO
tolerance for error.
Lew
"Dave Balderstone" wrote:
> This is an interesting idea, if it can be made to work.
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/24/bill_gates_and_terrapower/>
>
> <http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2010/02/bill_gates_g
> oes_nuclear.html>
>
> <http://intellectualventureslab.com/?page_id=532>
---------------------------
Looks like there is some mental and financial horsepower involved, so
even though it may not be the end game, who knows where it will lead.
After all, isn't that what research is all about?
Lew
"Larry W" wrote:
> I'd like to point put that all of the known nuclear accidents
> combined,
> including the current problems in Japan, have resulted in fewer
> deaths
> than those caused by mining and burning coal for electrical power in
> a
> single year. And the environmental degradation attributable to
> nuclear
> power, no matter how you choose to measure it, is several orders of
> magnitude less than that caused by coal mining.
------------------------------------
All the more reason to recognize the obvious.
Fossil fuel consumption must be reduced unless we knowingly want to do
irreparable harm to the planet.
The present energy industry has very deep pockets and will fight
development of alternate energy forms, but so be it.
It's time to get serious about our planet.
Lew
"Han" wrote:
>
> We shouldn't let the nuclear power industry get away with
> recertifying 50
> year-old power plants with known deficiencies without updating and
> fixing
> all the known deficiencies.
>
> Neither should we let the coal industry get away with carelessness
> as
> evident from the Massey accident(s) and nor let them dump their
> flyash
> anywhere they want to.
---------------------------------
You are preaching to the choir here Han.
Lew
A little follow up on San Onofre.
A "whistle blowers" law suit has been filed against Southern
California Edison, operators of San Onofre, by some retired safety
managers.
Seems these managers were told to down play safety violations reported
by operating personel by upper management.
These safety managers, some with 30 years service at San Onofre, were
forced to retire when they would not comply.
Should be interesting.
Lew
On 03/30/2011 07:42 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>
>>> Fossil fuel consumption must be reduced unless we knowingly want to
>>> do
>>> irreparable harm to the planet.
> -------------------------------
> "dpb" wrote:
>
>> We _don't_ know that...
> ------------------------------
> Another member of the flat earth society I see.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
Another member of the Chicken Little society, I see.
I wrote:
>> It is simply indicative of the total arrogance of the utility
>> industry.
---------------------------
"dpb" wrote:
> Balderdash...
----------------------------
Go back about 40 years when I was in Cleveland and Congressman Dennis
Kucinich (D-OH), was the mayor of Cleveland.
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating company, lead by their legal
council, Lee Howley, tried every trick in the book, legal and not so
much, to put the Cleveland Municipal Lighting out of business since
they competed with CEI.
Kucinich almost single handedly fought of CEI.
To the best of my knowledge is still in business as a distribution
utility buying power from CEI and reselling it.
About the same time CEI wanted to run new 345KV distribution lines on
federal park lands between Cleveland and Akron.
They went to court to gain access rights to the park land but lost.
Screw the courts, CEI ignored the courts and tried to start
construction anyway, not once, but several times.
Took a federal judge to finally stop CEI.
There are other examples, but those above make the point.
Lew
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 19:32:39 -0400, k-nuttle
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 3/30/2011 5:21 PM, Larry W wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Larry W) wrote in news:imut97$hf9$1
>>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> I'd like to point put that all of the known nuclear accidents combined,
>>>> including the current problems in Japan, have resulted in fewer deaths
>>>> than those caused by mining and burning coal for electrical power in a
>>>> single year. And the environmental degradation attributable to nuclear
>>>> power, no matter how you choose to measure it, is several orders of
>>>> magnitude less than that caused by coal mining.
>>>
>>> We shouldn't let the nuclear power industry get away with recertifying 50
>>> year-old power plants with known deficiencies without updating and fixing
>>> all the known deficiencies.
>>>
>>> Neither should we let the coal industry get away with carelessness as
>>> evident from the Massey accident(s) and nor let them dump their flyash
>>> anywhere they want to.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I agree 100% on both those counts.
>>
>We don't let 50 year old plants be re certified with known deficiencies.
> I believe it was about 10 or 12 years ago the Nuclear Plant at
>Southport North Carolina, was shut down and had to be fitted with some
>new modern equipment before it could be re certified.
>
>For those complaining about spent fuel, I believe Carter made it against
>the law to reprocess spent rods.
Carter was supposedly the "nuclear trained" president. Pshaw!
I think he took the Navy's 8-hour course. ;)
He can hack out a nice piece of wood, though.
--
The general effect was exactly like a microscopic view of a
small detachment of black beetles, in search of a dead rat.
-- John Ruskin
In article <[email protected]>,
Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning
> flywheel approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are
> they depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?
Big standby diesels often use compressed air start.
--
Stuart Winsor
Midland RISC OS show - Sat July 9th 2011
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:03:32 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"k-nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 3/20/2011 1:13 PM, dpb wrote:
>>> All in all, free fuel ain't so free after all...
>>>
>> That should not come as a problem for those who believe they are saving
>> the planet by converting their food to Alcohol, to burn in their cars.
>
>Not to mention that the harvested fuel simply replaces the fuel burned to
>produce it.
You burn more gasohol for the same power output/mile than that alcohol
they put in the gas mixtures now. Estimates on my Tundra are a 12%
loss due to the 10% ethanol they added to our fuel. That's a net
increase in fuel used per mile, an additional amount of CO2, and
higher prices on everything because damnear everything uses corn
nowadays. Ethanol is truly a clusterfuck, folks.
--
"I probably became a libertarian through exposure to tough-minded
professors" James Buchanan, Armen Alchian, Milton Friedman "who
encouraged me to think with my brain instead of my heart. I
learned that you have to evaluate the effects of public policy
as opposed to intentions."
-- Walter E. Williams
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:26:41 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Wait and see what happens from the fall out and the hysteria from fall out
>that is going to happen.
IF that happens. Don't count your chickens...
--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs
k-nuttle wrote:
>>
> Go to google and type "california problems with low flow toilets" into
> the search window you will see hundreds of articles on the problems
> caused by low flow toilets
>
> This is a specific article that appeared on CNN recently
>
> http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/01/low-flow-toilets-cause-stink-in-san-francisco/
To be fair - San Francisco's problem is with their sewers, not the toilets.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"k-nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/18/2011 4:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 3/17/2011 11:54 AM, Tim W wrote:
>>> "Just Wondering"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
> By presenting facts on radiation you are confusing the issue.
>
> It is like the double flush toilet, they feel good when they install a low
> volume toilet, even though the lack of flow requires you to flush it
> twice using more water than the old ones.
Just what are you trying to flush down your toilet that it takes two
flushes? ;~) I was skeptical about the double flush from what I had heard
about until we moved into our new home in December. So far 1 flush is all
that has been necessary althought I was on edge for no reason a time or two.
On Mar 31, 8:06=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >A little follow up on San Onofre.
>
> > A "whistle blowers" law suit has been filed against Southern California
> > Edison, operators of San Onofre, by some retired safety managers.
>
> > Seems these managers were told to down play safety violations reported =
by
> > operating personel by upper management.
>
> > These safety managers, some with 30 years service at San Onofre, were
> > forced to retire when they would not comply.
>
> > Should be interesting.
>
> > Lew
>
> Interesting and not at all suprising. =A0What would be suprising is if yo=
u
> cannot predict the outcome, lots more money spent by the government to
> verify but with no real change with repsect to that facility.
http://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp/daiichi-photos.htm
On Mar 18, 5:06=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I wasn't saying anything specific about my judgment on who
> should/shouldn't have nuclear capability but sure; I personally am much
> more comfortable w/ the Israeli's possible ( :) ) abilities in that
> regard than I am w/ either DPRK or Iran (or Pakistan/India or most of
> the former USSR satellites, for that matter).
>
I agree with your assessment re: Israel managing an arsenal of bombs.
My point was that I understand why Iamadinnerjacket wants some too. If
you have a capable nuclear weapons program, you are much less likely
to get bullied...IOW, don't piss off the guy who has a pistol when you
don't have one.
"k-nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/20/2011 8:46 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby<[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
>>>>> waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
>>>>> retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
>>>>> We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
>>>>> either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.
>>>>>
>>>>> [*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.
>>>>
>>>> My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
>>>> with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
>>>> flow toilet.
>>>
>>> Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.
>>>
>>
>> Not sure why you say what you do above. I've been looking into low flows
>> in
>> anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the near
>> future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
>> plumbing will not work with the new toilets. Rat's nest plumbing - well,
>> that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
>> anything.
>>
>> Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. If you're going
>> to
>> make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a couple/few
>> ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. If
>> there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or considered
>> yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
>> p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.
>>
> Go to google and type "california problems with low flow toilets" into the
> search window you will see hundreds of articles on the problems caused by
> low flow toilets
>
> This is a specific article that appeared on CNN recently
>
> http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/01/low-flow-toilets-cause-stink-in-san-francisco/
Why am I not suprised that it is once again a California problem. And in
the last 20+ years there are hundreds of articles on problems with toilets.
There are millions of these toilets in use, not having problems.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
>>> waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
>>> retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
>>> We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
>>> either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.
>>>
>>> [*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.
>>
>> My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
>> with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
>> flow toilet.
>
> Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.
>
Not sure why you say what you do above. I've been looking into low flows in
anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the near
future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
plumbing will not work with the new toilets. Rat's nest plumbing - well,
that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
anything.
Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. If you're going to
make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a couple/few
ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. If
there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or considered
yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> RE: Subject
>
> It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
> diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
> reactor shut downs.
>
> In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the tsunamis.
>
> So much for that back up.
>
> Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right on
> the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.
>
> This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate less
> than 2 miles away.
>
> It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during
> emergency reactor shut down.
>
> Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
> stations.
>
> Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in recent
> years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
> diesel storage tanks.
>
> A couple of thoughts:
>
> 1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning flywheel
> approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
> depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?
>
> Cranking motor and battery is less costly.
>
> 2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
> probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.
>
> 3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
> earthquake country?
>
> As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
> territory out there.
I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a matter
of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of the
others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
engeneer methods support those wishes.
Leon wrote:
> "k-nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 3/18/2011 4:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 3/17/2011 11:54 AM, Tim W wrote:
>>>> "Just Wondering"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>
>> By presenting facts on radiation you are confusing the issue.
>>
>> It is like the double flush toilet, they feel good when they install
>> a low volume toilet, even though the lack of flow requires you to
>> flush it twice using more water than the old ones.
>
> Just what are you trying to flush down your toilet that it takes two
> flushes? ;~) I was skeptical about the double flush from what I had
> heard about until we moved into our new home in December. So far 1
> flush is all that has been necessary althought I was on edge for no
> reason a time or two.
You shouldn't have been worried. With a low-flow toilet, there is no chance
of overflow during a blockage.
Unless you flush twice...
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:35:27 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Leon" wrote:
>>
>>> I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go
>>> back to conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is
>>> only a matter of time before this polution cutter will bite you in
>>> the ass like all of the others have. California seems to believe it
>>> can live in a cleaner environment than the rest of the country but
>>> obviousely cannot afford or engeneer methods support those wishes.
>>---------------------------
>>Poor baby, miss taking your analitis meds today?
>
> He obviously missed his reality pill.
Yeah, that's right, I have not yet put my head in the sand.
I have to laugh at all you geniuses.
You think man can handle every situation. Money, money money.
I went to school for engineering. Aerospace major, nuclear minor.
I found that the Aerospace guys were just as corrupt as others. While
interning at an aerospace company I watched the numbers that came off
our wind tunnel tests were manipulated to make sure funding continued.
I got so frustrated with the BS that I bailed on both. You guys that
believe that Nuclear is a good choice are funny. The half life of these
is almost 10 times longer than man has been on the earth for. Just think
about that.
It could never happen here these idiots claim. But then something else
happens and low and behold its just all BULL SHIT.
I don't trust big business, politicians, the NR,utilities... or CEO's
I tried buying a home near a reservoir in NJ... our well tests were off
the charts with TCE... later it was found that a large company was
dumping their used chemicals in the reservoir and in the mountains...
Fortunately I did a well test first.
Yea I believe. I believe man can't be trusted, and is very short sighted.
On 3/30/2011 11:14 AM, k-nuttle wrote:
> On 3/30/2011 1:41 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "dpb" wrote:
>>
>>> Which basic safety issue is that, precisely?
>> -------------------------
>> With what is going on right now in Japan, you have to ask?
>>
>>>> Look at the poor bastards who have the fly ash pits in their back
>>>> yards in TN and OK for starters.
>>>
>>> Which has what, precisely, to do w/ spent nuclear fuel????
>> ------------------------
>> It is simply indicative of the total arrogance of the utility
>> industry.
>>
>> "Daddy knows what's best" seems to permeate the industry, even the one
>> with this mess on their hands in Japan.
>>
>> IMHO, based on 50+ years of on and off dealings with the utility
>> industry, their approach seems to be the bottom line at any price.
>>
>> At this point in my life, I take most statements made by the utility
>> industry with a grain of salt.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>> Lew
>>
>
> As with most things nuclear, it is not the chemistry or physics that
> causes the problems, but the public, and their agents, the politicians.
> Much of the cost of building a nuclear plant is the paperwork that has
> to be completed.
>
> We developed the initial purification process for nuclear fuel in about
> 4 years, (about 1941 to 1945) Where would we be today in handling
> nuclear fuel and spent fuel rods, if in the last 60 years, the industry
> had been allowed to do the research to solve the current problems, and
> not had to fight regulations designed to destroy the industry.
>
> When introduced, some predicted that all new technology, would destroy
> the world. (Read your history, and the old newspapers.)
>
> Millions of people get minor electric shocks every day, but we still use
> electricity in every part of our activities.
>
>
>
>
>
>
In article <[email protected]>, "Lee
Michaels" says...
>
> Since there was a mention of wind energy, take a look at this.
>
> I read about this guy. His approach is very different. He is not going to
> solve our overall problems, but he is doing his best to help. Some folks
> think Sauer Energy is a hot investment opportunity.
>
> <http://www.sauerenergy.com>
Yeah, I'm sure they think it's a hot investment since it is clear that
that is what he's trying to make it. Read his applications page and
consider the First Law of Thermodynamics and you'll realize that he
failed high school physics.
>
>
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On 3/30/2011 6:32 PM, k-nuttle wrote:
> ...
>
> > For those complaining about spent fuel, I believe Carter made it against
> > the law to reprocess spent rods.
>
> Not exactly against the law; it was an Executive Order that decreed the
> NRC was not permitted to process a licensing application for a
> reprocessing facility. IOW, it's an administrative decision as opposed
> to law, a minor point in end result granted.
Three cheers for Carter, the shining example of why nice guys shouldn't
be in politics.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3" waste
>>> lines
>>> and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH, retrofitting a
>>> low-flow
>>> toilet into an older home can be a problem. We don't have a problems
>>> (well,
>>> not much[*]) with our new home, either, but I know a lot of people with
>>> older
>>> homes that do.
>>>
>>> [*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.
>>
>>My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
>>with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high flow
>>toilet.
>
> Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.
Still, can you say that you have never had a problem with a high volume
toilet?
"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4a762a6b-8a9c-43b8-845c-ddb4c29f8fa6@s18g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 20, 11:38 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "k-nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/20/2011 8:46 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby<[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>>> New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
> >>>>> waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
> >>>>> retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
> >>>>> We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
> >>>>> either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.
>
> >>>>> [*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.
>
> >>>> My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
> >>>> with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
> >>>> flow toilet.
>
> >>> Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.
>
> >> Not sure why you say what you do above. I've been looking into low
> >> flows
> >> in
> >> anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the
> >> near
> >> future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
> >> plumbing will not work with the new toilets. Rat's nest plumbing -
> >> well,
> >> that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
> >> anything.
>
> >> Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. If you're
> >> going
> >> to
> >> make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a
> >> couple/few
> >> ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. If
> >> there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or
> >> considered
> >> yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
> >> p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.
>
> > Go to google and type "california problems with low flow toilets" into
> > the
> > search window you will see hundreds of articles on the problems caused
> > by
> > low flow toilets
>
> > This is a specific article that appeared on CNN recently
>
> >http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/01/low-flow-toilets-cause-stink-in-...
>
> Why am I not suprised that it is once again a California problem. And in
> the last 20+ years there are hundreds of articles on problems with
> toilets.
> There are millions of these toilets in use, not having problems.- Hide
> quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
California vegetarian diet, higher in fiber.
U'd think that would keep the pipes cleaned out. ;~)
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
>>>> waste lines
>>>> and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH, retrofitting a
>>>> low-flow
>>>> toilet into an older home can be a problem. We don't have a
>>>> problems (well,
>>>> not much[*]) with our new home, either, but I know a lot of people
>>>> with older
>>>> homes that do.
>>>>
>>>> [*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.
>>>
>>>My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
>>>with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
>>>flow toilet.
>>
>> Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.
>
> Still, can you say that you have never had a problem with a high
> volume toilet?
He never had a big enough shit.
:)
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
[email protected] (Larry W) wrote in news:imut97$hf9$1
@speranza.aioe.org:
> I'd like to point put that all of the known nuclear accidents combined,
> including the current problems in Japan, have resulted in fewer deaths
> than those caused by mining and burning coal for electrical power in a
> single year. And the environmental degradation attributable to nuclear
> power, no matter how you choose to measure it, is several orders of
> magnitude less than that caused by coal mining.
We shouldn't let the nuclear power industry get away with recertifying 50
year-old power plants with known deficiencies without updating and fixing
all the known deficiencies.
Neither should we let the coal industry get away with carelessness as
evident from the Massey accident(s) and nor let them dump their flyash
anywhere they want to.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 3/30/2011 6:37 AM, Han wrote:
>> [email protected] (Larry W) wrote in news:imut97$hf9$1
>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> I'd like to point put that all of the known nuclear accidents
>>> combined, including the current problems in Japan, have resulted in
>>> fewer deaths than those caused by mining and burning coal for
>>> electrical power in a single year. And the environmental degradation
>>> attributable to nuclear power, no matter how you choose to measure
>>> it, is several orders of magnitude less than that caused by coal
>>> mining.
>>
>> We shouldn't let the nuclear power industry get away with
>> recertifying 50 year-old power plants with known deficiencies without
>> updating and fixing all the known deficiencies.
> ...
>
> License extensions are only granted after a thorough review.
>
> It is simply not practical to re-engineer/rebuild an existing facility
> entirely so your apparent request is to shut all operating plants.
> Unfortunately, since it isn't also possible to build replacements of
> any ilk in general, the US would be at a 20% shortfall if that were to
> happen. Needless to say, that would have serious economic
> consequences, too.
>
> "There is no free lunch"
I know there is no free lunch, and I'm not advocating scrapping the
plants that do conform to safety rules. It just appears to the layman
that if nature deals you a bad hand (Japan quakes & tsunami) or a set of
combinations of other extreme factors, some power plants get into extreme
problems.
From this layman's view there ought to be something done to at least
better ensure continued operation of cooling systems. I am really in
favor of nuclear energy, but it seems we're doing not enough to ensure
safety, and counting on luck only goes so far, as the Japanese found out.
Granted there was some real bad luck and operator errors
I think that the same should go for oil and coal. (Stupid drilling,
flyash disposal).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 3/20/2011 5:46 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
>>>> waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
>>>> retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
>>>> We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
>>>> either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.
>>>>
>>>> [*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.
>>>
>>> My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
>>> with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
>>> flow toilet.
>>
>> Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.
>>
>
> Not sure why you say what you do above. I've been looking into low flows in
> anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the near
> future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
> plumbing will not work with the new toilets. Rat's nest plumbing - well,
> that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
> anything.
>
> Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. If you're going to
> make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a couple/few
> ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. If
> there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or considered
> yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
> p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.
I agree. I also noted that krw completely ignored my statement that my
new low flow toilets actually work better then my old high flow toilet.
Dan
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
> stations.
> Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in recent
> years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
> diesel storage tanks.
Tonight on the BBC there was video of what is left of the *massive* walls
meant to protect a particular Japanese town from tsunami damage. These
enormous steel-reinforced concrete structures, as thick as they are high
(think yards, not feet), were broken up into gigantic chunks that completely
failed to protect the town which for all purposes no longer exists. A 30 ft
wall? Talk about false security.
Just Wondering wrote:
>
> From December 13, 2007 Scientific American article, "Coal Ash Is More
> Radioactive than Nuclear Waste",
>
> ... the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive
> than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly
> ash emitted by a power planta by-product from burning coal for
> electricitycarries into the surrounding environment 100 times more
> radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of
> energy. ...
> The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are
> slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plantsthey're just
> somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance
> in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's
> one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."
> ...
> As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a
> power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via
> water or dry cask storage.
>
Context is everything. The article is talking about radiation in normal
use - which for both fuels is miniscule. Others here have been talking
about nukes versus other technologies when things go wrong. The above
article and the previous comment you made which this attempts to defend are
true - but meaningless in context. The better analogy would be to compare
the radiological results of a train full of fly ash derailing and spilling
all its contents, and a nuke station going through what is happening in
Japan right now. Make that every train car in America on any given day,
derailing, full of fly ash. When it goes wrong - it goes wrong in a much
bigger way with nukes. Maybe Scientific American has an article you can
post on the environmental affects of a melt down.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:35:27 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Leon" wrote:
>
>> I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go
>> back to conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is
>> only a matter of time before this polution cutter will bite you in
>> the ass like all of the others have. California seems to believe it
>> can live in a cleaner environment than the rest of the country but
>> obviousely cannot afford or engeneer methods support those wishes.
>---------------------------
>Poor baby, miss taking your analitis meds today?
He obviously missed his reality pill.
--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs
On Mar 17, 12:35=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
> It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
> diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
> reactor shut downs.
>
> In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the
> tsunamis.
>
> So much for that back up.
Want some really scary stuff?
http://tinyurl.com/4tvxwgs
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:54:17 -0000, "Tim W" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>
>> One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
>> present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
>> radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.
>>>
>
>What? That's pretty misleading. A bit like saying a smoky old diesel is
>environmentally sound because it doesn't give you any problem with
>radioactive waste that has to be stored securely for several hundred years
>because it is so dangerous for the environment.
A smoky old diesel is safer than a smokeless new diesel becaust the
old one put bigass particulates (aka: soot) into the air which
immediately fell to the ground and stayed there. Now, with pollution
controls and low-sulfur fuel (at nearly twice the price as old), the
output from the diesel exhaust is more deadly because it stays in the
air. It _became_ an air pollution problem when it was just an eyesore
before. A truckdrivin' friend of mine is pissed over that.
--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:54:51 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:06:23 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> RE: Subject
>>>>>
>>>>> It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
>>>>> diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
>>>>> reactor shut downs.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the
>>>>> tsunamis.
>>>>>
>>>>> So much for that back up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right
>>>>> on
>>>>> the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate
>>>>> less
>>>>> than 2 miles away.
>>>>>
>>>>> It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power
>>>>> during
>>>>> emergency reactor shut down.
>>>>>
>>>>> Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
>>>>> stations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in
>>>>> recent
>>>>> years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
>>>>> diesel storage tanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> A couple of thoughts:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning
>>>>> flywheel
>>>>> approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
>>>>> depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cranking motor and battery is less costly.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
>>>>> probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
>>>>> earthquake country?
>>>>>
>>>>> As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
>>>>> territory out there.
>>>>
>>>>I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back
>>>>to
>>>>conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a
>>>>matter
>>>>of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of
>>>>the
>>>>others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
>>>>environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
>>>>engeneer methods support those wishes.
>>>
>>> Yeah, let's see how those idiot greenies like living with coalfired
>>> plants spewing godawful amounts of heat and pollution all over them
>>> while mile-long trains of coal run hourly to the plants to keep them
>>> operating.
>>>
>>> Let's see how long Arizona and Nevada put up with the acid rain from
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Boy, howdy! This oughta be _good_!
>>
>>I believe they would prefer that than a scenario like Japan has right now.
>
> Prefer which, the hysteria over radiation or the actual losses from
> the earthquake AND the tsunami?
Wait and see what happens from the fall out and the hysteria from fall out
that is going to happen.
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:06:23 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> RE: Subject
>>
>> It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
>> diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
>> reactor shut downs.
>>
>> In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the tsunamis.
>>
>> So much for that back up.
>>
>> Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right on
>> the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.
>>
>> This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate less
>> than 2 miles away.
>>
>> It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during
>> emergency reactor shut down.
>>
>> Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
>> stations.
>>
>> Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in recent
>> years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
>> diesel storage tanks.
>>
>> A couple of thoughts:
>>
>> 1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning flywheel
>> approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
>> depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?
>>
>> Cranking motor and battery is less costly.
>>
>> 2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
>> probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.
>>
>> 3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
>> earthquake country?
>>
>> As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
>> territory out there.
>
>I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
>conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a matter
>of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of the
>others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
>environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
>engeneer methods support those wishes.
Yeah, let's see how those idiot greenies like living with coalfired
plants spewing godawful amounts of heat and pollution all over them
while mile-long trains of coal run hourly to the plants to keep them
operating.
Let's see how long Arizona and Nevada put up with the acid rain from
them.
Boy, howdy! This oughta be _good_!
--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs
Nope, I was an idiot for originally believing that there were good
people making good decisions.
On 3/30/2011 9:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:26:52 -0400, tiredofspam<nospam.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> I have to laugh at all you geniuses.
>> You think man can handle every situation. Money, money money.
>> I went to school for engineering. Aerospace major, nuclear minor.
>> I found that the Aerospace guys were just as corrupt as others. While
>> interning at an aerospace company I watched the numbers that came off
>> our wind tunnel tests were manipulated to make sure funding continued.
>
> You excepted of course.
>
>> I got so frustrated with the BS that I bailed on both.
>
> Couldn't take the pressure.
>
>> You guys that
>> believe that Nuclear is a good choice are funny. The half life of these
>> is almost 10 times longer than man has been on the earth for. Just think
>> about that.
>
> If you were such a genius, you'd know that the longer the half-life the *less*
> radioactive a material is.
So I vote to put this *LESS* radioactive spent rods in your home, its
really safe... 8>)
>
>
> <snipped more moronic, self-serving drivel>
Your right. I like when good companies dump HAZ waste in drinking
supplies... It's good for us.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:46:21 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
>>>> waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
>>>> retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
>>>> We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
>>>> either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.
>>>>
>>>> [*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.
>>>
>>> My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
>>> with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
>>> flow toilet.
>>
>> Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.
>>
>
>Not sure why you say what you do above.
*Simple* logic should tell you that your experience is just that. It is not
universal law.
>I've been looking into low flows in
>anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the near
>future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
>plumbing will not work with the new toilets.
It often doesn't.
>Rat's nest plumbing - well,
>that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
>anything.
The toilet that was replaced, worked.
>Your most recent statement above is even more confusing.
It confuses you to state that your experience doesn't mean that others have
different experiences? You've never heard that anecdote <> data?
>If you're going to
>make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a couple/few
>ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. If
>there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or considered
>yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
>p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.
Huh? I stated a simple principle of *logic*. You want to dispute that?
[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Not sure why you say what you do above.
>
> *Simple* logic should tell you that your experience is just that. It
> is not universal law.
WTF dude? I never even expressed an opinion, or related any experiences.
From that I conclude that your statement above is to be taken as advisement
against relying too much on the experiences you relate here.
>
>> I've been looking into low flows in
>> anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the
>> near future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests
>> that 3" plumbing will not work with the new toilets.
>
> It often doesn't.
At this point - you are the only one to make this assertion. I'll take that
as an opion without a lot of supporting evidence.
>
>> Rat's nest plumbing - well,
>> that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
>> anything.
>
> The toilet that was replaced, worked.
>
>> Your most recent statement above is even more confusing.
>
> It confuses you to state that your experience doesn't mean that
> others have different experiences? You've never heard that anecdote
> <> data?
Again - please learn to read before you attempt to get clever in a
newsgroup. I made no such claims of experience. You are rapidly loosing
credibility on this matter.
>
>> If you're going to
>> make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a
>> couple/few ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific
>> direction. If there are things to be mindful of that I haven't
>> discovered or considered yet, I'd sure like to know before I get
>> into another of the dreaded p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.
>
> Huh? I stated a simple principle of *logic*. You want to dispute
> that?
You made no such statement. There is nothing to dispute in what you wrote
and that which I quoted, as you said nothing more substanative than to tell
another poster that he will have problems. There was nothing logical in
your post at all.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:26:52 -0400, tiredofspam <nospam.nospam.com> wrote:
>I have to laugh at all you geniuses.
>You think man can handle every situation. Money, money money.
>I went to school for engineering. Aerospace major, nuclear minor.
>I found that the Aerospace guys were just as corrupt as others. While
>interning at an aerospace company I watched the numbers that came off
>our wind tunnel tests were manipulated to make sure funding continued.
You excepted of course.
>I got so frustrated with the BS that I bailed on both.
Couldn't take the pressure.
>You guys that
>believe that Nuclear is a good choice are funny. The half life of these
>is almost 10 times longer than man has been on the earth for. Just think
>about that.
If you were such a genius, you'd know that the longer the half-life the *less*
radioactive a material is.
<snipped more moronic, self-serving drivel>
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:34:09 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3" waste
>>>> lines
>>>> and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH, retrofitting a
>>>> low-flow
>>>> toilet into an older home can be a problem. We don't have a problems
>>>> (well,
>>>> not much[*]) with our new home, either, but I know a lot of people with
>>>> older
>>>> homes that do.
>>>>
>>>> [*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.
>>>
>>>My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
>>>with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high flow
>>>toilet.
>>
>> Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.
>
>Still, can you say that you have never had a problem with a high volume
>toilet?
I have more with the low flow, certainly. The one problem that I don't have,
as has been noted here, is the overflow problem.
That said, I really don't have that much of an issue with them in *NEW*
construction. Demanding that they be retrofitted to existing construction is
dumb. The federal government in my bathroom is a real problem.
On 3/17/2011 1:37 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 3/17/2011 8:01 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:06:23 -0500, "Leon"<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Lew Hodgett"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> RE: Subject
>>>>
>>>> It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
>>>> diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
>>>> reactor shut downs.
>>>>
>>>> In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the
>>>> tsunamis.
>>>>
>>>> So much for that back up.
>>>>
>>>> Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station
>>>> right on
>>>> the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.
>>>>
>>>> This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate
>>>> less
>>>> than 2 miles away.
>>>>
>>>> It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power
>>>> during
>>>> emergency reactor shut down.
>>>>
>>>> Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
>>>> stations.
>>>>
>>>> Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in
>>>> recent
>>>> years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
>>>> diesel storage tanks.
>>>>
>>>> A couple of thoughts:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning
>>>> flywheel
>>>> approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
>>>> depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?
>>>>
>>>> Cranking motor and battery is less costly.
>>>>
>>>> 2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
>>>> probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.
>>>>
>>>> 3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
>>>> earthquake country?
>>>>
>>>> As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
>>>> territory out there.
>>>
>>> I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go
>>> back to
>>> conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a
>>> matter
>>> of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all
>>> of the
>>> others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
>>> environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
>>> engeneer methods support those wishes.
>>
>> Yeah, let's see how those idiot greenies like living with coalfired
>> plants spewing godawful amounts of heat and pollution all over them
>> while mile-long trains of coal run hourly to the plants to keep them
>> operating.
>
> Coal-fired power plants already produce half of USA's electricity.
> EPA-mandated scrubbers make the plants low polluters. They are already
> running near capacity. They, and all other sources for generating
> electricity combined, don't have enough reserve capacity to pick up the
> slack if the nuclear power plants were all taken off line. And it takes
> years not months to build new plants.
>
> One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
> present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
> radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.
>>
>> Let's see how long Arizona and Nevada put up with the acid rain from
>> them.
>>
>> Boy, howdy! This oughta be _good_!
>>
>> --
>> A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
>> -- William S. Burroughs
>
One thing people do not realize is they can not get away from natural
radiation. Radiation comes from concrete, stone, and many other
sources. Then don't forget we are bombarded by radiation of the sun
and other sources every minute of our lives.
There is probably more radiation from the Containment vessel of a Nuke
plant than from the reaction that is contained in side.
Live with it there as there is no way to live with out it.
"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>
> One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
> present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
> radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.
>>
What? That's pretty misleading. A bit like saying a smoky old diesel is
environmentally sound because it doesn't give you any problem with
radioactive waste that has to be stored securely for several hundred years
because it is so dangerous for the environment.
Tim W
You are the type of guy that after something does happen will be
wondering why something wasn't done to prevent that type of failure. But
it will be too late.
I believe in change for the good, but somethings the risks outweigh the
benefits. If this were just your backyard I wouldn't care.
But when this becomes my backyard well if it comes to that I want you to
suffer you pecker head.
I suppose what happened in Russia and Japan can't happen here according
to you. Or aren't that serious. When the shit hits the fan here, I hope
it is in your backyard, and I hope you don't ruin mine.
On 3/30/2011 11:28 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 21:52:19 -0400, tiredofspam<nospam.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Nope, I was an idiot for originally believing that there were good
>> people making good decisions.
>>
>> On 3/30/2011 9:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:26:52 -0400, tiredofspam<nospam.nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have to laugh at all you geniuses.
>>>> You think man can handle every situation. Money, money money.
>>>> I went to school for engineering. Aerospace major, nuclear minor.
>>>> I found that the Aerospace guys were just as corrupt as others. While
>>>> interning at an aerospace company I watched the numbers that came off
>>>> our wind tunnel tests were manipulated to make sure funding continued.
>>>
>>> You excepted of course.
>>>
>>>> I got so frustrated with the BS that I bailed on both.
>>>
>>> Couldn't take the pressure.
>>>
>>>> You guys that
>>>> believe that Nuclear is a good choice are funny. The half life of these
>>>> is almost 10 times longer than man has been on the earth for. Just think
>>>> about that.
>>>
>>> If you were such a genius, you'd know that the longer the half-life the *less*
>>> radioactive a material is.
>>
>> So I vote to put this *LESS* radioactive spent rods in your home, its
>> really safe... 8>)
>
> You really are a dumbass.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> <snipped more moronic, self-serving drivel>
>>
>> Your right.
>
> Yes, I am. You are moronic.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:38:52 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"k-nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 3/20/2011 8:46 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby<[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
>>>>>> waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
>>>>>> retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
>>>>>> We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
>>>>>> either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.
>>>>>
>>>>> My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
>>>>> with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
>>>>> flow toilet.
>>>>
>>>> Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not sure why you say what you do above. I've been looking into low flows
>>> in
>>> anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the near
>>> future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
>>> plumbing will not work with the new toilets. Rat's nest plumbing - well,
>>> that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
>>> anything.
>>>
>>> Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. If you're going
>>> to
>>> make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a couple/few
>>> ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. If
>>> there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or considered
>>> yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
>>> p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.
>>>
>> Go to google and type "california problems with low flow toilets" into the
>> search window you will see hundreds of articles on the problems caused by
>> low flow toilets
>>
>> This is a specific article that appeared on CNN recently
>>
>> http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/01/low-flow-toilets-cause-stink-in-san-francisco/
>
>Why am I not suprised that it is once again a California problem. And in
>the last 20+ years there are hundreds of articles on problems with toilets.
>There are millions of these toilets in use, not having problems.
California always leads the nation in trying out newest, greenest
things. When we went from 3.4gal to 2gal using bricks and gallon
water bottles, it worked. When we went from 2gal to 1.6gal, it worked.
But now, with the 1.4gal and 1.1gal models, shit happened.
In SF's case here, they are using so little water now that their
sewers are not being swept, so shit sits everywhere in puddles,
reeking as a result. They're saving 20 million gallons/year now and
it's causing other problems.
From the wiki article:
"US standards for low-flow and high-efficiency toilets
A pre 1994 flush-toilet or gravity-fed toilet uses 13 litres (3.4 US
gallons or 2.8 imperial gallons) or more per flush. In 1992, the
United States Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which
mandated that, from 1994, the common flush-toilet use only 1.6 US
gallons (6 litres) of water per flush. In response to the Act,
manufacturers produced low-flow toilets, which many consumers did not
like. Manufacturers responded to consumers' complaints by improving
the toilets. The improved products are generally identified as high
efficiency toilets or HETs. HETs possess an effective flush volume of
4.8 litres (1.28 US gallons) or less.[13] HETs may be single-flush or
dual-flush. A dual-flush toilet permits its user to choose between two
amounts of water.[14] Some HETs are pressure-assisted (or
power-assisted or pump-assisted or vacuum-assisted). The performance
of a flush-toilet may be rated by a Maximum Performance (MaP) score.
The low end of MaP scores is 250. The high end of MaP scores is 1000.
A toilet with a MaP score of 1000 should provide trouble-free service.
It should remove all waste with a single flush; it should not plug; it
should not harbor any odor; it should be easy to keep clean. The
United States Environmental Protection Agency uses a MaP score of 350
as the minimum performance threshold for HETs.[13] 1.6 gpf toilets are
also sometimes referred as ULF toilets (or Ultra Low Flow) toilets."
I'm wondering if these SF toilets are meeting the HET threshold.
I'll bet not. And the sewers sure ain't!
--
"I probably became a libertarian through exposure to tough-minded
professors" James Buchanan, Armen Alchian, Milton Friedman "who
encouraged me to think with my brain instead of my heart. I
learned that you have to evaluate the effects of public policy
as opposed to intentions."
-- Walter E. Williams
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 22:41:18 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Not sure why you say what you do above.
>>
>> *Simple* logic should tell you that your experience is just that. It
>> is not universal law.
>
>WTF dude? I never even expressed an opinion, or related any experiences.
I had you confused with the person I was responding to. The point is still
valid. It was a statement of *simple* logic.
>From that I conclude that your statement above is to be taken as advisement
>against relying too much on the experiences you relate here.
Fair enough. You shouldn't. He proposed it as gospel, even though it was
anecdotal. You didn't like my statement of such.
>>> I've been looking into low flows in
>>> anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the
>>> near future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests
>>> that 3" plumbing will not work with the new toilets.
>>
>> It often doesn't.
>
>At this point - you are the only one to make this assertion. I'll take that
>as an opion without a lot of supporting evidence.
Gee, you've been under a rock for the last couple of decades?
>>
>>> Rat's nest plumbing - well,
>>> that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
>>> anything.
>>
>> The toilet that was replaced, worked.
>>
>>> Your most recent statement above is even more confusing.
>>
>> It confuses you to state that your experience doesn't mean that
>> others have different experiences? You've never heard that anecdote
>> <> data?
>
>Again - please learn to read before you attempt to get clever in a
>newsgroup. I made no such claims of experience. You are rapidly loosing
>credibility on this matter.
But the poster who says that everything is peachy because "I have no problems"
is credible?
>>
>>> If you're going to
>>> make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a
>>> couple/few ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific
>>> direction. If there are things to be mindful of that I haven't
>>> discovered or considered yet, I'd sure like to know before I get
>>> into another of the dreaded p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.
>>
>> Huh? I stated a simple principle of *logic*. You want to dispute
>> that?
>
>You made no such statement.
Then you're you have no concept of even the simplest logic.
> There is nothing to dispute in what you wrote
>and that which I quoted, as you said nothing more substanative than to tell
>another poster that he will have problems. There was nothing logical in
>your post at all.
I never said anything of the kind. I said that problems were possible with
older plumbing and low-flush toilets, the OP's experience notwithstanding.
Logic really isn't your strong suit. Neither is literacy.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 21:52:19 -0400, tiredofspam <nospam.nospam.com> wrote:
>Nope, I was an idiot for originally believing that there were good
>people making good decisions.
>
>On 3/30/2011 9:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:26:52 -0400, tiredofspam<nospam.nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have to laugh at all you geniuses.
>>> You think man can handle every situation. Money, money money.
>>> I went to school for engineering. Aerospace major, nuclear minor.
>>> I found that the Aerospace guys were just as corrupt as others. While
>>> interning at an aerospace company I watched the numbers that came off
>>> our wind tunnel tests were manipulated to make sure funding continued.
>>
>> You excepted of course.
>>
>>> I got so frustrated with the BS that I bailed on both.
>>
>> Couldn't take the pressure.
>>
>>> You guys that
>>> believe that Nuclear is a good choice are funny. The half life of these
>>> is almost 10 times longer than man has been on the earth for. Just think
>>> about that.
>>
>> If you were such a genius, you'd know that the longer the half-life the *less*
>> radioactive a material is.
>
>So I vote to put this *LESS* radioactive spent rods in your home, its
>really safe... 8>)
You really are a dumbass.
>>
>>
>> <snipped more moronic, self-serving drivel>
>
>Your right.
Yes, I am. You are moronic.
"k-nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> One thing people do not realize is they can not get away from natural
> radiation. Radiation comes from concrete, stone, and many other sources.
> Then don't forget we are bombarded by radiation of the sun and other
> sources every minute of our lives.
>
> There is probably more radiation from the Containment vessel of a Nuke
> plant than from the reaction that is contained in side.
>
Staggeringly wrong.
Tim W
In article <[email protected]>,
Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
>conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a matter
>of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of the
>others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
>environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
>engeneer methods support those wishes.
We're working on it. Wind, solar, geothermal. All under development.
All clean. All using free fuel.
Check out http://nanosolar.com/, not 20 miles from where I live.
They're heading towards $1/watt capacity which makes solar competitive
with any other power source.
--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
On 3/17/2011 7:31 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dpb" wrote:
>
>> Only when the sun's shining--I want my lights on at night, too!
> --------------------------------
> That's why in addition to solar-voltaic, solar-thermal, geo-thermal
> and wind-turbines, to name a few, all exist.
>
> There is no single source solution.
...
Sure there is; it's called "conventional"
--
On 3/18/2011 4:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 3/17/2011 11:54 AM, Tim W wrote:
>> "Just Wondering"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>
>>> One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
>>> present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
>>> radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.
>>>>
>>
>> What? That's pretty misleading. A bit like saying a smoky old diesel is
>> environmentally sound because it doesn't give you any problem with
>> radioactive waste that has to be stored securely for several hundred
>> years
>> because it is so dangerous for the environment.
>>
>
> From December 13, 2007 Scientific American article, "Coal Ash Is More
> Radioactive than Nuclear Waste",
>
> ... the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than
> that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash
> emitted by a power plantâa by-product from burning coal for
> electricityâcarries into the surrounding environment 100 times more
> radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
> ...
> The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are
> slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plantsâthey're just somewhat
> higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion
> for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million
> to one in a hundred million for coal plants."
> ...
> As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a
> power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via
> water or dry cask storage.
>
> The whole article can be read at
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
>
By presenting facts on radiation you are confusing the issue.
It is like the double flush toilet, they feel good when they install a
low volume toilet, even though the lack of flow requires you to flush
it twice using more water than the old ones.
I wonder if we could increase the volume of facts to flush the nonsense
about the nuclear power plants down the drain with the other stuff.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:20:31 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>California vegetarian diet, higher in fiber.
>
>U'd think that would keep the pipes cleaned out. ;~)
<groan> WHAP, WHAP, WHAP!
Sorry, Charlie. That only works on _human_ pipes, not antiquated
sewers.
--
"I probably became a libertarian through exposure to tough-minded
professors" James Buchanan, Armen Alchian, Milton Friedman "who
encouraged me to think with my brain instead of my heart. I
learned that you have to evaluate the effects of public policy
as opposed to intentions."
-- Walter E. Williams
On 3/18/2011 2:58 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
...
> Other countries recycle their spent nuclear rods, resulting in far less
> radioactive waste. Why doesn't the USA?
Primarily we never got started because Mista' Ca-ahter (peanut farmer,
nuclear Navy, fairly decent woodworker to keep us on topic :) ) couldn't
distinguish (didn't understand) the difference between reprocessing for
weapons (nuclear proliferation) and commercial nuclear power and made
two sweeping edicts part of his policy platform --
1) Canceled the Breeder Demonstration project at Oak Ridge, and
2) Executive order that NRC would not consider the application of GE for
licensing a facility at Barnwell for reprocessing commercial nuclear fuel.
We're still paying the consequences for both... :(
(BS NucE/MS NucSci, retired, w/ 30+ years w/ reactor vendor and
consultant to utilities, various US national laboratories, DOE and
commercial clients...)
--
On 3/18/2011 9:45 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 3/18/2011 2:58 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> ...
>
>> Other countries recycle their spent nuclear rods, resulting in far less
>> radioactive waste. Why doesn't the USA?
>
> Primarily we never got started because Mista' Ca-ahter (peanut farmer,
> nuclear Navy, fairly decent woodworker to keep us on topic :) ) couldn't
> distinguish (didn't understand) the difference between reprocessing for
> weapons (nuclear proliferation) and commercial nuclear power and made
> two sweeping edicts part of his policy platform --
>
> 1) Canceled the Breeder Demonstration project at Oak Ridge, and
>
> 2) Executive order that NRC would not consider the application of GE for
> licensing a facility at Barnwell for reprocessing commercial nuclear fuel.
>
> We're still paying the consequences for both... :(
As in it accomplished nothing regarding nuclear proliferation (N Korea,
Iran as prime examples) and we still have no coherent spent nuclear fuel
policy (other than continue to let it accumulate up at the reactors in
the spent fuel pools).
> (BS NucE/MS NucSci, retired, w/ 30+ years w/ reactor vendor and
> consultant to utilities, various US national laboratories, DOE and
> commercial clients...)
>
> --
On 3/18/2011 1:07 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 18, 12:56 pm, dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 3/18/2011 9:45 AM, dpb wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 3/18/2011 2:58 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> ...
>>
>>>> Other countries recycle their spent nuclear rods, resulting in far less
>>>> radioactive waste. Why doesn't the USA?
>>
>>> Primarily we never got started because Mista' Ca-ahter (peanut farmer,
>>> nuclear Navy, fairly decent woodworker to keep us on topic :) ) couldn't
>>> distinguish (didn't understand) the difference between reprocessing for
>>> weapons (nuclear proliferation) and commercial nuclear power and made
>>> two sweeping edicts part of his policy platform --
>>
>>> 1) Canceled the Breeder Demonstration project at Oak Ridge, and
>>
>>> 2) Executive order that NRC would not consider the application of GE for
>>> licensing a facility at Barnwell for reprocessing commercial nuclear fuel.
>>
>>> We're still paying the consequences for both... :(
>>
>> As in it accomplished nothing regarding nuclear proliferation (N Korea,
>> Iran as prime examples) and we still have no coherent spent nuclear fuel
>> policy (other than continue to let it accumulate up at the reactors in
>> the spent fuel pools).
>>
>>
>>
>>> (BS NucE/MS NucSci, retired, w/ 30+ years w/ reactor vendor and
>>> consultant to utilities, various US national laboratories, DOE and
>>> commercial clients...)
>>
>>> --
>
> We don't really know about Iran's capabilities. BUT... if you lived
> next door to Israel, who does have nuclear capability without ever
> having signed on to any non proliferation treaties, wouldn't you want
> to be able to deter an aggressor with weapons of similar ilk? Only
> countries with nuclear capability don't get bullied, so who can blame
> any nation for wanting those weapons? Aimadinnerjacket might be a
> nutbar, but he knows what he needs.
> North Korea? They haven't proven conclusively to possess The Bomb....
> sure a big bang in a mine and a little radiation 'seed'... a whole ot
> of smoke and mirrors...but HEY, we got to keep the little people in
> the Homeland scared of the boogie man, and Iran and NKorea sure come
> in handy for that....
I wasn't saying anything specific about my judgment on who
should/shouldn't have nuclear capability but sure; I personally am much
more comfortable w/ the Israeli's possible ( :) ) abilities in that
regard than I am w/ either DPRK or Iran (or Pakistan/India or most of
the former USSR satellites, for that matter).
OTOH, as events demonstrated, what the US chose to do wrt commercial
nuclear power (or, in this case, chose _not_ to do) in not reprocessing
spent commercial fuel had no bearing whatsoever on the decisions of
outside governments as to what course to follow in their own best
interests as they perceived those to be.
I only brought it up as the demonstration that the directives of Mr
Carter didn't produce the desired result on the one front and completely
stopped the handling of spent commercial nuclear fuel on the other.
Clearly, a "lose-lose".
AFAIK, the IAEA and others concluded that the DPRK tests were, in fact,
legitimate albeit relatively small based on seismology and radiation
signatures afterward.
--
On 3/18/2011 7:19 PM, Robatoy wrote:
...
> I agree with your assessment re: Israel managing an arsenal of bombs.
> My point was that I understand why Iamadinnerjacket wants some too. If
> you have a capable nuclear weapons program, you are much less likely
> to get bullied...IOW, don't piss off the guy who has a pistol when you
> don't have one.
Of course...but that seems to miss the initial point I was making
initially that it was obvious to anybody (or at least to me :) ) that
the unilateral decision by Carter that the US would not reprocess
commercial nuclear fuel would have absolutely no influence upon the
nutjobs running the places in which he was so interested in trying to
prevent proliferation; they didn't care what the US did (and, for the
most part, still don't) and were going to do whatever they thought was
in their interest irregardless whether that was to pretend to agree or
be blatant about it or waffle back and forth or use promises of future
good behavior as a carrot for goodies or ...
In the end, all it did was harm the US commercial power industry and
leave us saddled w/ all the spent fuel piling up at the reactors while
Harry R plays (like Nero w/ a fiddle) similar populist politics w/ Yucca
Mtn in Nevada.
It was misguided policy then and arose simply because Mr Carter (as nice
a human being as he is as a person) was woefully ignorant of anything
"nucular" outside the Navy training and could never in his heart (and
therefore, mind) separate commercial from weapons material. Thus, any
and all talk of reprocessing was bad. I was in discussions w/ White
House staff at the time who were responsible for passing on this
nonsense and trying to explain the reasoning behind it--the ones who had
any real knowledge allowed it was nonsense but "he's the boss and calls
the shots". :(
--
On 3/18/2011 8:07 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 3/18/2011 7:19 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> ...
>
>> I agree with your assessment re: Israel managing an arsenal of bombs.
>> My point was that I understand why Iamadinnerjacket wants some too. If
>> you have a capable nuclear weapons program, you are much less likely
>> to get bullied...IOW, don't piss off the guy who has a pistol when you
>> don't have one.
>
> Of course...but that seems to miss the initial point I was making
> initially...
And, that was specifically aimed at the question of why the US doesn't
reprocess raised; the basic reason is that there is still that edict in
place so we can't.
NB: That's not to say that we would necessarily be reprocessing without
it even if GE had gotten their licensing application approved; TMI
occurred not too long after and what w/ the furor over it and 18-20%
interest rates it's not at all clear GE could have managed to get the
plant built, anyway.
And, of course, many of those who envisioned reprocessing initially or
did at one time have also quit simply owing to the economics; at present
demand and prices, it's cheaper to not. That's particularly true w/ the
large quantities of HEU returned from the former USSR that is gradually
being blended down that saves all the SWUs required for enrichment.
We'll just have to "hide and watch" and see what shakes out politically
from the current mess in Japan; it's going to throw a spanner in the
works everywhere, justified or not (and some may well be but it'll gum
up everything far beyond the necessary/commensense point; that's just
the way we do things here).
--
On 3/20/2011 8:46 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
>>>> waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
>>>> retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
>>>> We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
>>>> either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.
>>>>
>>>> [*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.
>>>
>>> My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
>>> with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
>>> flow toilet.
>>
>> Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.
>>
>
> Not sure why you say what you do above. I've been looking into low flows in
> anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the near
> future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
> plumbing will not work with the new toilets. Rat's nest plumbing - well,
> that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
> anything.
>
> Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. If you're going to
> make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a couple/few
> ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. If
> there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or considered
> yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
> p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.
>
Go to google and type "california problems with low flow toilets" into
the search window you will see hundreds of articles on the problems
caused by low flow toilets
This is a specific article that appeared on CNN recently
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/01/low-flow-toilets-cause-stink-in-san-francisco/
Saw this approach in Baltimore 20 years ago. So not new by any stretch.
Marty
On 3/18/2011 8:47 AM, Lee Michaels wrote:
> Since there was a mention of wind energy, take a look at this.
>
> I read about this guy. His approach is very different. He is not going
> to solve our overall problems, but he is doing his best to help. Some
> folks think Sauer Energy is a hot investment opportunity.
>
> <http://www.sauerenergy.com>
>
>
>
Yeah, Right, here in Vermont all alternative power (solar, wind)
are first built with grants from state and federal governments.
Then to top if off the local utilities are required (not optional)
to purchase this power at 3 cent per KWH over the rates charged for
power from other sources (hydro and Nuke).
If the solar and wind sources have a business model that depends
upon government to build the systems and surcharges over the going
wholesale rate for power they are doomed to failure.
Marty
On 3/17/2011 4:02 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Leon<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
>> conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a matter
>> of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of the
>> others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
>> environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
>> engeneer methods support those wishes.
>
> We're working on it. Wind, solar, geothermal. All under development.
> All clean. All using free fuel.
>
> Check out http://nanosolar.com/, not 20 miles from where I live.
> They're heading towards $1/watt capacity which makes solar competitive
> with any other power source.
>
On 3/18/2011 3:22 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
...
> 1. Wind power is dependent on the wind. There are very few locations
> with a dependable wind source. And there's not enough wind power
> available, even if used 100%, to make much of a dent in a nation's
> energy needs.
...
I've posted the capacity factor records for the Gray County (KS) wind
farm previously...
For the eight years of operation, the average monthly capacity factor
has only been 40% in one of the prime locations for wind generation in
the US (western High Plains region). Months during the diurnal cycle of
early winter and late summer are generally 30% and less; even the
highest in early spring have only hit 50% in one of eight years.
Han recently asked if that weren't owing to other factors than wind
availability such as dispatch so I recently did a correlation w/ the
monthly average wind speeds and no month was below 0.8 w/ the overall at
>0.90 even on such a coarse basis as monthly averages.
It can thus be concluded that on average it takes 2.5X the installed
capacity to generate a given level of power from wind and that that
factor goes even higher for significant fractions of the year (and
there's a smaller daily diurnal period as wind speed generally falls at
night as solar heating goes away). This causes two effects, neither of
which is conducive to saving much if at all economically and mitigates
the positive benefits from diversion. First, the low fuel density means
a high cost/output as well as a huge over-capacity required to make up
for at least some of the variability in supply. Second, for a reliable
grid there has to be standby generation for most, if not all, of this
capacity and this has exacerbated the rush to build natural gas-fired
co-gen units as the cheapest/quickest way to get that done. That's a
_terrible_ short term use of natural gas, btw, that will undoubtedly
come to haunt in the (not so distant) future as heating costs continue
to rise...
All in all, free fuel ain't so free after all...
--
On 3/20/2011 1:13 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 3/18/2011 3:22 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> ...
>
>> 1. Wind power is dependent on the wind. There are very few locations
>> with a dependable wind source. And there's not enough wind power
>> available, even if used 100%, to make much of a dent in a nation's
>> energy needs.
>
> ...
>
> I've posted the capacity factor records for the Gray County (KS) wind
> farm previously...
>
> For the eight years of operation, the average monthly capacity factor
> has only been 40% in one of the prime locations for wind generation in
> the US (western High Plains region). Months during the diurnal cycle of
> early winter and late summer are generally 30% and less; even the
> highest in early spring have only hit 50% in one of eight years.
>
> Han recently asked if that weren't owing to other factors than wind
> availability such as dispatch so I recently did a correlation w/ the
> monthly average wind speeds and no month was below 0.8 w/ the overall at
> >0.90 even on such a coarse basis as monthly averages.
>
> It can thus be concluded that on average it takes 2.5X the installed
> capacity to generate a given level of power from wind and that that
> factor goes even higher for significant fractions of the year (and
> there's a smaller daily diurnal period as wind speed generally falls at
> night as solar heating goes away). This causes two effects, neither of
> which is conducive to saving much if at all economically and mitigates
> the positive benefits from diversion. First, the low fuel density means
> a high cost/output as well as a huge over-capacity required to make up
> for at least some of the variability in supply. Second, for a reliable
> grid there has to be standby generation for most, if not all, of this
> capacity and this has exacerbated the rush to build natural gas-fired
> co-gen units as the cheapest/quickest way to get that done. That's a
> _terrible_ short term use of natural gas, btw, that will undoubtedly
> come to haunt in the (not so distant) future as heating costs continue
> to rise...
>
> All in all, free fuel ain't so free after all...
>
> --
That should not come as a problem for those who believe they are saving
the planet by converting their food to Alcohol, to burn in their cars.
They are the one who are also clamoring about the high CO2 content in
the atmosphere, while they refuse to admit that chemically Alcohol
generates twice the CO2 as gasoline. One when fermented + one when burned.
On 3/20/2011 12:30 PM, k-nuttle wrote:
> On 3/20/2011 1:13 PM, dpb wrote:
...
>> _terrible_ short term use of natural gas, btw, that will undoubtedly
>> come to haunt in the (not so distant) future as heating costs continue
>> to rise...
>>
>> All in all, free fuel ain't so free after all...
>>
>> --
> That should not come as a problem for those who believe they are saving
> the planet by converting their food to Alcohol, to burn in their cars.
>
> They are the one who are also clamoring about the high CO2 content in
> the atmosphere, while they refuse to admit that chemically Alcohol
> generates twice the CO2 as gasoline. One when fermented + one when burned.
They don't count that as it is all assumed to be reabsorbed by the next
growing cycle.
The real issue out here imo (and it has nothing to do w/ whether one
raises irrigated corn, soybeans, milo, wheat, whatever) is that
irrigation at current levels isn't sustainable w/ an essentially
non-renewing reservoir so that water is mined just as if it were oil,
gas, gold...
It's roughly 2-3000 gal/bu to raise 200-bu corn; the water for the
ethanol conversion is additional (but smaller, relatively, in comparison
although certainly not insignificant).
--
On 3/29/2011 7:59 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Just Wondering" wrote:
>
>> Other countries recycle their spent nuclear rods, resulting in far
>> less radioactive waste. Why doesn't the USA?
> -----------------------------------
> An interesting stat has come to light.
>
> Over $13 Billion with a "B" and several years have been spent trying
> to answer that question.
>
> A workable solution is still waiting to be found.
...
Removing Harry Reid some years ago would have done for the interim solution.
The problem as outlined earlier is political, not technical, going back
in the US to the Carter edict and then the political football that
became Yucca Mountain. There's no overriding technical issue in that
fiasco at all; it was and is entirely populist politics of NIMB and
personal advantage of the situation by Harry to retain his seat.
--
On 3/29/2011 8:53 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:59:06 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Just Wondering" wrote:
>>
>>> Other countries recycle their spent nuclear rods, resulting in far
>>> less radioactive waste. Why doesn't the USA?
>> -----------------------------------
>> An interesting stat has come to light.
>>
>> Over $13 Billion with a "B" and several years have been spent trying
>> to answer that question.
>>
>> A workable solution is still waiting to be found.
>
> Cites? The only reason I've ever seen is cost. It appears that it's
> cheaper to mine and enrich fresh uranium than it is to reprocess it.
...
I _THINK_ he's kicking about the investment in and subsequent
abandonment of the Yucca Mountain site for "monitored retrievable
storage" (which, granted, was always a gross overkill from the git-go as
a concept but was intended to get around the objections of permanent
disposal at the cost of a terribly complex (hence expensive) dry storage
facility.
Instead, it became yet another political football on top of the
gold-plating and eventually sank under the weight of disinterest in
Congress to actually do something useful as opposed to punt the ball
down the road and Harry R's great personal vendetta used to keep himself
being re-elected. (Meanwhile, of course, NV was _very_ content to take
all the construction and engineering $$ spent locally for 20 years or
so...Harry's nothing if not self-opportune)
--
On 3/29/2011 9:05 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" wrote:
>
>> Cites? The only reason I've ever seen is cost. It appears that
>> it's
>> cheaper to mine and enrich fresh uranium than it is to reprocess it.
> -----------------------------
> I am reminded of the old story about what part of the body was the
> most important.
>
> If the ass hole quit working, the whole body had a real problem.
>
> Right now when it comes to spent fuel rods, the ass hole isn't
> working.
Because the politicians put a cork in the orifice, not because there
isn't something that _could_ be done...
--
On 3/29/2011 9:09 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 3/29/2011 9:05 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Larry Jaques" wrote:
>>
>>> Cites? The only reason I've ever seen is cost. It appears that
>>> it's
>>> cheaper to mine and enrich fresh uranium than it is to reprocess it.
>> -----------------------------
>> I am reminded of the old story about what part of the body was the
>> most important.
>>
>> If the ass hole quit working, the whole body had a real problem.
>>
>> Right now when it comes to spent fuel rods, the ass hole isn't
>> working.
>
> Because the politicians put a cork in the orifice, not because there
> isn't something that _could_ be done...
And, BTW, perhaps Japan's current situation will be the impetus required
to consider that leaving spent fuel just sitting in the (intended only
for short-term storage) spent fuel pools at the various reactors isn't
really ideal.
Who knows, if somebody were really on the ball, maybe they would
actually for the interim kick H in the teeth and go ahead an put it in
Yucca Mtn where it was intended to go until somebody got the gumption to
actually make a rational policy decision--altho expecting that is
undoubtedly too much to hope for.
--
On 3/29/2011 9:16 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dpb" wrote:
>
>> Removing Harry Reid some years ago would have done for the interim
>> solution.
> --------------------------
> Ancient history.
Not really, since it led to the current situation.
> --------------------------
>> The problem as outlined earlier is political, not technical, going
>> back in the US to the Carter edict and then the political football
>> that became Yucca Mountain.
> ------------------------------
> More ancient history.
See above...
> Even if Yucca had been allowed, it isn't big enough to handle all of
> today's spent fuel rods.
> -------------------------------------
Not so sure about that; point was it was to be expanded; that it never
happened but was the plan means we're where we are now which is current
condition, not history...
>> There's no overriding technical issue
>> in that fiasco at all; it was and is entirely populist politics of
>> NIMB and personal advantage of the situation by Harry to retain his
>> seat.
> --------------------------
> Until the basic safety issues can be answered, NIMBY seems pretty
> reasonable.
Which basic safety issue is that, precisely?
> Look at the poor bastards who have the fly ash pits in their back
> yards in TN and OK for starters.
Which has what, precisely, to do w/ spent nuclear fuel????
--
I'd like to point put that all of the known nuclear accidents combined,
including the current problems in Japan, have resulted in fewer deaths
than those caused by mining and burning coal for electrical power in a
single year. And the environmental degradation attributable to nuclear
power, no matter how you choose to measure it, is several orders of
magnitude less than that caused by coal mining.
--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
On 3/29/2011 9:48 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dpb" wrote:
>
>> And, BTW, perhaps Japan's current situation will be the impetus
>> required to consider that leaving spent fuel just sitting in the
>> (intended only for short-term storage) spent fuel pools at the
>> various reactors isn't really ideal.
> ----------------------------------------
> I suspect that developing and implementing a safe disposal plan for
> spent fuel rods may not be very high on the priority list compared to
> all the other problems this disaster has uncovered that need major
> attention.
...
One of the key problem areas the Japanese are having is the spent fuel
pools--I have no data on how much spent fuel is onsite there but presume
there isn't 40-yrs of operation worth given that Japan does
recycle/reprocess at least some.
Certainly if they were operating under US constraints every bit of spent
fuel from the first reload would still be there and the problems would
be even greater.
One would hope that realization of that would break the current
political stalemate here and get us moving away from that (altho I hold
little optimism, one can always hope for _some_ enlightenment out of DC
eventually).
--
On 3/30/2011 12:41 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dpb" wrote:
>
>> Which basic safety issue is that, precisely?
> -------------------------
> With what is going on right now in Japan, you have to ask?
I thought we were talking of long-term storage of spent fuel and the US
impasse wrt to that issue. I was asking what technical/safety problems
were extant at Yucca Mtn that were/are worse or even close to equal to
those currently existant by leaving it in increasingly crowded spent
fuel pools at the operating reactor sites.
>>> Look at the poor bastards who have the fly ash pits in their back
>>> yards in TN and OK for starters.
>>
>> Which has what, precisely, to do w/ spent nuclear fuel????
> ------------------------
> It is simply indicative of the total arrogance of the utility
> industry.
Balderdash...
> "Daddy knows what's best" seems to permeate the industry, even the one
> with this mess on their hands in Japan.
>
> IMHO, based on 50+ years of on and off dealings with the utility
> industry, their approach seems to be the bottom line at any price.
>
> At this point in my life, I take most statements made by the utility
> industry with a grain of salt.
...
But you flip the light switch and expect nearly 100%-reliable power at
rock-bottom rates, ...
--
On 3/30/2011 1:41 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dpb" wrote:
>
>> Which basic safety issue is that, precisely?
> -------------------------
> With what is going on right now in Japan, you have to ask?
>
>>> Look at the poor bastards who have the fly ash pits in their back
>>> yards in TN and OK for starters.
>>
>> Which has what, precisely, to do w/ spent nuclear fuel????
> ------------------------
> It is simply indicative of the total arrogance of the utility
> industry.
>
> "Daddy knows what's best" seems to permeate the industry, even the one
> with this mess on their hands in Japan.
>
> IMHO, based on 50+ years of on and off dealings with the utility
> industry, their approach seems to be the bottom line at any price.
>
> At this point in my life, I take most statements made by the utility
> industry with a grain of salt.
>
> Lew
>
>
> Lew
>
As with most things nuclear, it is not the chemistry or physics that
causes the problems, but the public, and their agents, the politicians.
Much of the cost of building a nuclear plant is the paperwork that has
to be completed.
We developed the initial purification process for nuclear fuel in about
4 years, (about 1941 to 1945) Where would we be today in handling
nuclear fuel and spent fuel rods, if in the last 60 years, the industry
had been allowed to do the research to solve the current problems, and
not had to fight regulations designed to destroy the industry.
When introduced, some predicted that all new technology, would destroy
the world. (Read your history, and the old newspapers.)
Millions of people get minor electric shocks every day, but we still use
electricity in every part of our activities.
On 3/30/2011 6:37 AM, Han wrote:
> [email protected] (Larry W) wrote in news:imut97$hf9$1
> @speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> I'd like to point put that all of the known nuclear accidents combined,
>> including the current problems in Japan, have resulted in fewer deaths
>> than those caused by mining and burning coal for electrical power in a
>> single year. And the environmental degradation attributable to nuclear
>> power, no matter how you choose to measure it, is several orders of
>> magnitude less than that caused by coal mining.
>
> We shouldn't let the nuclear power industry get away with recertifying 50
> year-old power plants with known deficiencies without updating and fixing
> all the known deficiencies.
...
License extensions are only granted after a thorough review.
It is simply not practical to re-engineer/rebuild an existing facility
entirely so your apparent request is to shut all operating plants.
Unfortunately, since it isn't also possible to build replacements of any
ilk in general, the US would be at a 20% shortfall if that were to
happen. Needless to say, that would have serious economic consequences,
too.
"There is no free lunch"
--
In article <[email protected]>,
Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Larry W) wrote in news:imut97$hf9$1
>@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> I'd like to point put that all of the known nuclear accidents combined,
>> including the current problems in Japan, have resulted in fewer deaths
>> than those caused by mining and burning coal for electrical power in a
>> single year. And the environmental degradation attributable to nuclear
>> power, no matter how you choose to measure it, is several orders of
>> magnitude less than that caused by coal mining.
>
>We shouldn't let the nuclear power industry get away with recertifying 50
>year-old power plants with known deficiencies without updating and fixing
>all the known deficiencies.
>
>Neither should we let the coal industry get away with carelessness as
>evident from the Massey accident(s) and nor let them dump their flyash
>anywhere they want to.
>
I agree 100% on both those counts.
--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
On 3/30/2011 3:41 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
...
> This is an interesting idea, if it can be made to work.
...
> <http://intellectualventureslab.com/?page_id=532>
Yeah, I've looked at before.
I don't see how they're going to get around the issues of LOCA, etc.,
entirely any more than any other fission reactor--basic thermodynamics
will require a given amount of heat energy from a reactor to produce a
comparable amount of steam to drive the turbines and there's no less
decay heat from a given number of fissions/second spread over some
amorphous blob than there is in a cylindrical fuel rod of the same
number of fissioned nuclei in a conventional reactor design.
I don't see where it really solves the fundamental problems of accidents
or natural disasters however novel the physics.
I don't say there's no chance I'm missing something major here, but I
don't see it. If they're going to generate 1000 MWe, say, they've got
to have something like 3000 MWt from the reactor. What cools it any
differently?
--
On 3/30/2011 3:30 PM, Han wrote:
...
> I know there is no free lunch, and I'm not advocating scrapping the
> plants that do conform to safety rules. It just appears to the layman
> that if nature deals you a bad hand (Japan quakes& tsunami) or a set of
> combinations of other extreme factors, some power plants get into extreme
> problems.
If they don't conform to the rules, they don't get licensed...you're
asking to change the rules after the kickoff, basically. That's fair
game for a new game; not so much for the one in play.
> From this layman's view there ought to be something done to at least
> better ensure continued operation of cooling systems. I am really in
> favor of nuclear energy, but it seems we're doing not enough to ensure
> safety, and counting on luck only goes so far, as the Japanese found out.
> Granted there was some real bad luck and operator errors
There's very little luck intended in the design. I don't know what the
design basis earthquake for Fukushima facility was (I've posted before
that since I don't read Japanese I can't go to the source of the actual
filed FSARs and I've not seen it reported in the press) but it appears
that there wasn't much actual earthquake damage that was totally
critical from the earthquake alone. If so, that says that part of the
design was probably adequate or nearly so. US reactors are also
designed to withstand a site-specific earthquake the magnitude and input
energy waveforms which are based on best estimates for the particular site.
It appears that the problems at Fukushima that really got them were
related to the following tsunami damage--it appears quite possible that
was underestimated in the design. I agree there probably should be more
stringent siting requirements with respect to nearness to known faults
and particularly those that would be susceptible to tsunamis such that
they aren't place in low-lying tidal areas in the future.
--
> I think that the same should go for oil and coal. (Stupid drilling,
> flyash disposal).
Bad drivers, too...
--
On 3/30/2011 4:21 PM, Larry W wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] (Larry W) wrote in news:imut97$hf9$1
>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> I'd like to point put that all of the known nuclear accidents combined,
>>> including the current problems in Japan, have resulted in fewer deaths
>>> than those caused by mining and burning coal for electrical power in a
>>> single year. And the environmental degradation attributable to nuclear
>>> power, no matter how you choose to measure it, is several orders of
>>> magnitude less than that caused by coal mining.
>>
>> We shouldn't let the nuclear power industry get away with recertifying 50
>> year-old power plants with known deficiencies without updating and fixing
>> all the known deficiencies.
>>
>> Neither should we let the coal industry get away with carelessness as
>> evident from the Massey accident(s) and nor let them dump their flyash
>> anywhere they want to.
>>
>
>
> I agree 100% on both those counts.
That would be good since neither is true.
There are always bad eggs; Massey operations were in some instances
criminal--all the laws in the world don't do anything except after the
fact for those who chose to break them.
Flyash is very much under regulation as to where it goes--they don't
just "dump anywhere they want to". Again, there's nothing man does that
doesn't occasionally go wrong so to expect there to _never_ be a problem
is simply unrealistic irregardless of how much regulation or care is
taken. Sometimes the commonplace gets less attention than it might;
certainly TVA had no intention of the Kingston flyash pond dam letting go...
--
On 3/30/2011 5:21 PM, Larry W wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] (Larry W) wrote in news:imut97$hf9$1
>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> I'd like to point put that all of the known nuclear accidents combined,
>>> including the current problems in Japan, have resulted in fewer deaths
>>> than those caused by mining and burning coal for electrical power in a
>>> single year. And the environmental degradation attributable to nuclear
>>> power, no matter how you choose to measure it, is several orders of
>>> magnitude less than that caused by coal mining.
>>
>> We shouldn't let the nuclear power industry get away with recertifying 50
>> year-old power plants with known deficiencies without updating and fixing
>> all the known deficiencies.
>>
>> Neither should we let the coal industry get away with carelessness as
>> evident from the Massey accident(s) and nor let them dump their flyash
>> anywhere they want to.
>>
>
>
> I agree 100% on both those counts.
>
We don't let 50 year old plants be re certified with known deficiencies.
I believe it was about 10 or 12 years ago the Nuclear Plant at
Southport North Carolina, was shut down and had to be fitted with some
new modern equipment before it could be re certified.
For those complaining about spent fuel, I believe Carter made it against
the law to reprocess spent rods.
On 3/30/2011 7:42 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dpb" wrote:
>>
>> But you flip the light switch and expect nearly 100%-reliable power
>> at rock-bottom rates, ...
> ----------------------------
> I also expect them to clean up their own mess in the process and not
> pass off their garbage for others to do the job.
Well, when their hands are tied by law, makes it tough...
> After all, utilities are unique, they are guaranteed to make a profit
> as a part of their rate structure, it's not like they have to compete
> in the market place to make a profit.
That ain't necessarily so everywhere any more, either...
--
On 3/30/2011 7:55 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
...
> Ever since the first reactor was commissioned, 40+ years ago, the
> industry has been kicking the "spent fuel disposal" can down the road.
Again, it isn't "the industry" that's done the kicking, it's been the US
government that has hog-tied the industries hands; most notably w/ the
Carter Executive Order.
>
> There may be no solution to the problem.
Of course there's a solution
> Putting spent fuel rods in a welded cask, or burying them certainly
> are not long term solutions.
Of course not--that's what I've been saying that the legislative
geniuses need to get out of the way.
_BUT_, given the legislative mandates that were in place, certainly
having it located at Yucca Mtn would be better than the current
alternative that there is no alternative permitted except to let it
accumulate in the spent fuel pools at the reactor sites.
Again, the problem is primarily political first and to complain that
"industry" hasn't done something when there's no permitting for them to
do anything is pointing the finger at the wrong party.
--
On 3/30/2011 8:06 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dpb" wrote:
>> License extensions are only granted after a thorough review.
>>
>> It is simply not practical to re-engineer/rebuild an existing
>> facility entirely so your apparent request is to shut all operating
>> plants.
> ------------------------------
> If it is not possible to repair and upgrade a facility to make it
> safe, then it needs to be shut down.
Nothing in the world is "safe" by your criterion. They meet applicable
requirements or they are; what is unreasonable is to think one can
change the entire design requirement and then retrofit an existing
facility to that.
>
> As stated elsewhere, the nuclear process allows absolutely ZERO
> tolerance for error.
...
Well, that's clearly not true, either...there's been quite a lot of
error as well as natural disaster it would seem and the overall effect
is, afaict, no serious injuries to date even, what more any direct
deaths. Quite a lot of property damage of course, but then in the big
picture of the rest of the property damaged....
One might as well say there should be absolutely zero tolerance for
error in passenger aircraft; your chances there aren't good in
comparison. They're built as best know how; that's where we are in
anything and everything we do.
--
On 3/30/2011 6:32 PM, k-nuttle wrote:
...
> For those complaining about spent fuel, I believe Carter made it against
> the law to reprocess spent rods.
Not exactly against the law; it was an Executive Order that decreed the
NRC was not permitted to process a licensing application for a
reprocessing facility. IOW, it's an administrative decision as opposed
to law, a minor point in end result granted.
--
On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3" waste lines
> and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH, retrofitting a low-flow
> toilet into an older home can be a problem. We don't have a problems (well,
> not much[*]) with our new home, either, but I know a lot of people with older
> homes that do.
>
> [*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.
My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high flow
toilet.
The only problem that I had was that some idiot plumber could not mount
the flange at the proper height or level to the floor. My guess is that
the plumbing that is below the floor is probably even worse.
I used a basic Kohler model toilet.
http://www.homedepot.com/Bath-Toilets-One-Two-Piece-Toilets/KOHLER/h_d1/N-5yc1vZarj3Z1qh/R-202409236/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053
Dan
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Coal-fired power plants already produce half of USA's electricity.
> EPA-mandated scrubbers make the plants low polluters.
Low by whose standards? The mercury accumulating in our food chain is not
exactly healthy stuff, and one in six American babies has been exposed to
dangerous levels of mercury in utero.
> One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
> present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
> radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.
Until there is an accident, then the nuke plant catches up, including the
ones the Navy has had a few little accidents with resulting in things like
contaminated water being released into harbors. The Navy took one of its
early and unsuccessful submarine reactors, encased it in stainless steel,
and sunk it in the ocean. They went looking for it years later, couldn't
find it.
And then there is the issue of what to do with the spent fuel....
"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/17/2011 8:01 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:06:23 -0500, "Leon"<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Lew Hodgett"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> RE: Subject
>>>>
>>>> It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
>>>> diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
>>>> reactor shut downs.
>>>>
>>>> In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the
>>>> tsunamis.
>>>>
>>>> So much for that back up.
>>>>
>>>> Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right
>>>> on
>>>> the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.
>>>>
>>>> This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate
>>>> less
>>>> than 2 miles away.
>>>>
>>>> It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power
>>>> during
>>>> emergency reactor shut down.
>>>>
>>>> Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
>>>> stations.
>>>>
>>>> Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in
>>>> recent
>>>> years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
>>>> diesel storage tanks.
>>>>
>>>> A couple of thoughts:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning
>>>> flywheel
>>>> approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
>>>> depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?
>>>>
>>>> Cranking motor and battery is less costly.
>>>>
>>>> 2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
>>>> probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.
>>>>
>>>> 3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
>>>> earthquake country?
>>>>
>>>> As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
>>>> territory out there.
>>>
>>> I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back
>>> to
>>> conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a
>>> matter
>>> of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of
>>> the
>>> others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
>>> environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
>>> engeneer methods support those wishes.
>>
>> Yeah, let's see how those idiot greenies like living with coalfired
>> plants spewing godawful amounts of heat and pollution all over them
>> while mile-long trains of coal run hourly to the plants to keep them
>> operating.
>
> Coal-fired power plants already produce half of USA's electricity.
> EPA-mandated scrubbers make the plants low polluters. They are already
> running near capacity. They, and all other sources for generating
> electricity combined, don't have enough reserve capacity to pick up the
> slack if the nuclear power plants were all taken off line. And it takes
> years not months to build new plants.
>
> One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
> present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
> radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.
Even your granite counter tops emit radiation but as far as releasing
radiation from the oil fired plants your statement is not true when compared
to 3 mile island, Chernoble and or the Japan facility and that is the
problem.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 22:23:57 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:13:00 -0700, Larry Jaques
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I've measured a 10% mileage reduction for 10% ethanol on my Ranger. Makes
>> it
>> rather useless, eh?
>
>And that E85 fuel is worse than filling up with water... er almost.
If you could just fill up with water....
Mark
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:54:51 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:06:23 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> RE: Subject
>>>>
>>>> It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
>>>> diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
>>>> reactor shut downs.
>>>>
>>>> In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the
>>>> tsunamis.
>>>>
>>>> So much for that back up.
>>>>
>>>> Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right
>>>> on
>>>> the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.
>>>>
>>>> This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate less
>>>> than 2 miles away.
>>>>
>>>> It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power
>>>> during
>>>> emergency reactor shut down.
>>>>
>>>> Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
>>>> stations.
>>>>
>>>> Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in recent
>>>> years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
>>>> diesel storage tanks.
>>>>
>>>> A couple of thoughts:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning
>>>> flywheel
>>>> approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
>>>> depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?
>>>>
>>>> Cranking motor and battery is less costly.
>>>>
>>>> 2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
>>>> probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.
>>>>
>>>> 3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
>>>> earthquake country?
>>>>
>>>> As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
>>>> territory out there.
>>>
>>>I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
>>>conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a matter
>>>of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of
>>>the
>>>others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
>>>environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
>>>engeneer methods support those wishes.
>>
>> Yeah, let's see how those idiot greenies like living with coalfired
>> plants spewing godawful amounts of heat and pollution all over them
>> while mile-long trains of coal run hourly to the plants to keep them
>> operating.
>>
>> Let's see how long Arizona and Nevada put up with the acid rain from
>> them.
>>
>> Boy, howdy! This oughta be _good_!
>
>I believe they would prefer that than a scenario like Japan has right now.
Prefer which, the hysteria over radiation or the actual losses from
the earthquake AND the tsunami?
--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:38:49 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"k-nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 3/18/2011 4:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 3/17/2011 11:54 AM, Tim W wrote:
>>>> "Just Wondering"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>
>> By presenting facts on radiation you are confusing the issue.
>>
>> It is like the double flush toilet, they feel good when they install a low
>> volume toilet, even though the lack of flow requires you to flush it
>> twice using more water than the old ones.
>
>Just what are you trying to flush down your toilet that it takes two
>flushes? ;~) I was skeptical about the double flush from what I had heard
>about until we moved into our new home in December. So far 1 flush is all
>that has been necessary althought I was on edge for no reason a time or two.
New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3" waste lines
and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH, retrofitting a low-flow
toilet into an older home can be a problem. We don't have a problems (well,
not much[*]) with our new home, either, but I know a lot of people with older
homes that do.
[*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:57:23 -0700, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 19:32:39 -0400, k-nuttle
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 3/30/2011 5:21 PM, Larry W wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>> Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] (Larry W) wrote in news:imut97$hf9$1
>>>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to point put that all of the known nuclear accidents combined,
>>>>> including the current problems in Japan, have resulted in fewer deaths
>>>>> than those caused by mining and burning coal for electrical power in a
>>>>> single year. And the environmental degradation attributable to nuclear
>>>>> power, no matter how you choose to measure it, is several orders of
>>>>> magnitude less than that caused by coal mining.
>>>>
>>>> We shouldn't let the nuclear power industry get away with recertifying 50
>>>> year-old power plants with known deficiencies without updating and fixing
>>>> all the known deficiencies.
>>>>
>>>> Neither should we let the coal industry get away with carelessness as
>>>> evident from the Massey accident(s) and nor let them dump their flyash
>>>> anywhere they want to.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree 100% on both those counts.
>>>
>>We don't let 50 year old plants be re certified with known deficiencies.
>> I believe it was about 10 or 12 years ago the Nuclear Plant at
>>Southport North Carolina, was shut down and had to be fitted with some
>>new modern equipment before it could be re certified.
>>
>>For those complaining about spent fuel, I believe Carter made it against
>>the law to reprocess spent rods.
>
>Carter was supposedly the "nuclear trained" president. Pshaw!
>I think he took the Navy's 8-hour course. ;)
Try looking up his bio. You're not far from wrong.
>He can hack out a nice piece of wood, though.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:13:00 -0700, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:03:32 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"k-nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On 3/20/2011 1:13 PM, dpb wrote:
>>>> All in all, free fuel ain't so free after all...
>>>>
>>> That should not come as a problem for those who believe they are saving
>>> the planet by converting their food to Alcohol, to burn in their cars.
>>
>>Not to mention that the harvested fuel simply replaces the fuel burned to
>>produce it.
>
>You burn more gasohol for the same power output/mile than that alcohol
>they put in the gas mixtures now. Estimates on my Tundra are a 12%
>loss due to the 10% ethanol they added to our fuel. That's a net
>increase in fuel used per mile, an additional amount of CO2, and
I've measured a 10% mileage reduction for 10% ethanol on my Ranger. Makes it
rather useless, eh?
>higher prices on everything because damnear everything uses corn
>nowadays. Ethanol is truly a clusterfuck, folks.
Yep. But lefties never let the lives of a few million people get in the way
of their ideas for a better world.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 19:05:52 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Larry Jaques" wrote:
>
>> Cites? The only reason I've ever seen is cost. It appears that
>> it's
>> cheaper to mine and enrich fresh uranium than it is to reprocess it.
>-----------------------------
>I am reminded of the old story about what part of the body was the
>most important.
>
>If the ass hole quit working, the whole body had a real problem.
>
>Right now when it comes to spent fuel rods, the ass hole isn't
>working.
What a clever way to avoid giving cites!
--
The general effect was exactly like a microscopic view of a
small detachment of black beetles, in search of a dead rat.
-- John Ruskin
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "k-nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 3/18/2011 4:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 3/17/2011 11:54 AM, Tim W wrote:
>>>>> "Just Wondering"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> By presenting facts on radiation you are confusing the issue.
>>>
>>> It is like the double flush toilet, they feel good when they install
>>> a low volume toilet, even though the lack of flow requires you to
>>> flush it twice using more water than the old ones.
>>
>> Just what are you trying to flush down your toilet that it takes two
>> flushes? ;~) I was skeptical about the double flush from what I had
>> heard about until we moved into our new home in December. So far 1
>> flush is all that has been necessary althought I was on edge for no
>> reason a time or two.
>
> You shouldn't have been worried. With a low-flow toilet, there is no
> chance of overflow during a blockage.
>
> Unless you flush twice...
Actually there has been no problem with a single flush, even with the
sizeable loads. ;~)
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
>>>> waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
>>>> retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
>>>> We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
>>>> either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.
>>>>
>>>> [*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.
>>>
>>> My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
>>> with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
>>> flow toilet.
>>
>> Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.
>>
>
> Not sure why you say what you do above. I've been looking into low flows
> in anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the
> near future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that
> 3" plumbing will not work with the new toilets. Rat's nest plumbing -
> well, that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
> anything.
>
> Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. If you're going
> to make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a
> couple/few ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific
> direction. If there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered
> or considered yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the
> dreaded p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.
When the things were first introduced umpteen years ago there was a popular
complaing about them not doing what they needed to do. I think those that
were more full of it may have had problems or feared possible problems.
Which reminds me of an old episode of Married with Children. Al was
remodeling his bathroom and was having a comercial high power flush toilet
installed in his bathroom to handle his "man sized" loads.
Like everything else, improvements are constantly being made. I have had
the opportunity, ;~) to use one on a continued basis for the last 10 years.
So as far as ten years back "all" of the ones that I have used have never
demonstrated any problems. I can honestly say that has not been the case
with the older designed full flush models.
Having said that, if you have plumbing problems it probably is not the fault
of the fixture.
About 7 minutes in, THE FERGUSON toilet!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrbEBvM7LP8
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:59:06 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Just Wondering" wrote:
>
>> Other countries recycle their spent nuclear rods, resulting in far
>> less radioactive waste. Why doesn't the USA?
>-----------------------------------
>An interesting stat has come to light.
>
>Over $13 Billion with a "B" and several years have been spent trying
>to answer that question.
>
>A workable solution is still waiting to be found.
Cites? The only reason I've ever seen is cost. It appears that it's
cheaper to mine and enrich fresh uranium than it is to reprocess it.
--
The general effect was exactly like a microscopic view of a
small detachment of black beetles, in search of a dead rat.
-- John Ruskin
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back
>> to conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a
>> matter of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like
>> all of the others have. California seems to believe it can live in a
>> cleaner environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot
>> afford or engeneer methods support those wishes.
> ---------------------------
> Poor baby, miss taking your analitis meds today?
>
> Lew
>
>
Don't like hearing about your future?
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3" waste lines
>> and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH, retrofitting a low-flow
>> toilet into an older home can be a problem. We don't have a problems (well,
>> not much[*]) with our new home, either, but I know a lot of people with older
>> homes that do.
>>
>> [*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.
>
>My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
>with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high flow
>toilet.
Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.
>The only problem that I had was that some idiot plumber could not mount
>the flange at the proper height or level to the floor. My guess is that
>the plumbing that is below the floor is probably even worse.
>
>I used a basic Kohler model toilet.
>
>http://www.homedepot.com/Bath-Toilets-One-Two-Piece-Toilets/KOHLER/h_d1/N-5yc1vZarj3Z1qh/R-202409236/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053
>
>
>Dan
>
>
"k-nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/20/2011 1:13 PM, dpb wrote:
>> On 3/18/2011 3:22 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> 1. Wind power is dependent on the wind. There are very few locations
>>> with a dependable wind source. And there's not enough wind power
>>> available, even if used 100%, to make much of a dent in a nation's
>>> energy needs.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I've posted the capacity factor records for the Gray County (KS) wind
>> farm previously...
>>
>> For the eight years of operation, the average monthly capacity factor
>> has only been 40% in one of the prime locations for wind generation in
>> the US (western High Plains region). Months during the diurnal cycle of
>> early winter and late summer are generally 30% and less; even the
>> highest in early spring have only hit 50% in one of eight years.
>>
>> Han recently asked if that weren't owing to other factors than wind
>> availability such as dispatch so I recently did a correlation w/ the
>> monthly average wind speeds and no month was below 0.8 w/ the overall at
>> >0.90 even on such a coarse basis as monthly averages.
>>
>> It can thus be concluded that on average it takes 2.5X the installed
>> capacity to generate a given level of power from wind and that that
>> factor goes even higher for significant fractions of the year (and
>> there's a smaller daily diurnal period as wind speed generally falls at
>> night as solar heating goes away). This causes two effects, neither of
>> which is conducive to saving much if at all economically and mitigates
>> the positive benefits from diversion. First, the low fuel density means
>> a high cost/output as well as a huge over-capacity required to make up
>> for at least some of the variability in supply. Second, for a reliable
>> grid there has to be standby generation for most, if not all, of this
>> capacity and this has exacerbated the rush to build natural gas-fired
>> co-gen units as the cheapest/quickest way to get that done. That's a
>> _terrible_ short term use of natural gas, btw, that will undoubtedly
>> come to haunt in the (not so distant) future as heating costs continue
>> to rise...
>>
>> All in all, free fuel ain't so free after all...
>>
>> --
> That should not come as a problem for those who believe they are saving
> the planet by converting their food to Alcohol, to burn in their cars.
Not to mention that the harvested fuel simply replaces the fuel burned to
produce it.
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:06:23 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> RE: Subject
>>>
>>> It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
>>> diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
>>> reactor shut downs.
>>>
>>> In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the
>>> tsunamis.
>>>
>>> So much for that back up.
>>>
>>> Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right
>>> on
>>> the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.
>>>
>>> This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate less
>>> than 2 miles away.
>>>
>>> It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power
>>> during
>>> emergency reactor shut down.
>>>
>>> Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
>>> stations.
>>>
>>> Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in recent
>>> years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
>>> diesel storage tanks.
>>>
>>> A couple of thoughts:
>>>
>>> 1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning
>>> flywheel
>>> approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
>>> depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?
>>>
>>> Cranking motor and battery is less costly.
>>>
>>> 2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
>>> probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.
>>>
>>> 3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
>>> earthquake country?
>>>
>>> As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
>>> territory out there.
>>
>>I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
>>conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a matter
>>of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of
>>the
>>others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
>>environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
>>engeneer methods support those wishes.
>
> Yeah, let's see how those idiot greenies like living with coalfired
> plants spewing godawful amounts of heat and pollution all over them
> while mile-long trains of coal run hourly to the plants to keep them
> operating.
>
> Let's see how long Arizona and Nevada put up with the acid rain from
> them.
>
> Boy, howdy! This oughta be _good_!
I believe they would prefer that than a scenario like Japan has right now.